Transport Bill

HL Deb 24 October 1985 vol 467 cc1298-368

Read a third time.

Clause 1 [Abolition of road service licensing]:

Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 5, at end insert—

("(4) If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that, in the light of circumstances arising after the passing of this Act, the necessary steps to achieve the orderly abolition of road service licensing can be completed in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 6 to this Act, he may by order vary such of the provisions of that Schedule as he thinks necessary for that purpose.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I should like to remind your Lordships of a little of the history of the debate that we have had in this House on the question of timing. It needs to be said, first, that we did not really get to timing until Report stage because the Government, for a number of reasons, found themselves unable to come forward with anything that we could debate until the very end of the Committee stage. I should also like to remind your Lordships—I want to be absolutely fair about this—that the amendment that is before the House appeared in different words in a group of amendments moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.

The noble Lord dealt very briefly in his speech with that amendment. It was unlike all the rest because the remainder were all concerned with setting back the whole of the timing on transition by six months. The noble Lord dealt with it briefly and my noble friend Lord Belstead replied to it very briefly. At a later stage of the Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, came to move the amendment, he said specifically that he would like to withdraw it because he might want to raise it at Third Reading. I say this because I am conscious that some of your Lordships might feel that I am raising a subject that had already been fully dealt with. I do not want, and do not need, to repeat anyhow in full, all the arguments that were used about the dangers that exist—that the timing that the Government have chosen for the transitional phase might be so tight that there would be massive failure to get through it in time.

I would only like to remind your Lordships of two matters. First, there is in the metropolitan counties—a very large number of buses are, of course, to be found there—a massive political and structural upheaval going on. The change of structure, in terms of transport, will be going on at the same time. For that reason alone it is going to be more difficult to get through everything by 28th September, the time specified.

The second point is more general. It goes to the heart of the whole Bill. Throughout the country, there are literally thousands of examples of an entirely new type of service coming into being. I refer to the individually subsidised service, each one run under its own individual contract issued by the appropriate local authority. Of course, that sort of service can only get on to the road after a long process. I do not want to go into it in any detail. The local authority must decide, after the commercial services have been registered, where the gaps are to be found. They must then put those services out to tender. They must get in applications from would-be operators. They must decide the extent to which the necessary money is available to cover those services. Finally, and here we come perhaps to the most tedious of the tasks, they must get out thousands of individual contracts—all this with what I am sure we would agree is a number of staff that really is in no way adequate for this sort of crash programme. And it is expert staff.

I hope therefore that there will be no disagreement about this point that the timing is certainly very tight. But it is not necessarily the worse for that. Let me explain, however, what the real danger is when the chips are down and 28th September arrives. I think we can assume—at least I assume—that the commercial services (that is, the commercial registered services) will all have been registered and will all be there when the time comes. The worry concerns the subsidised services which have had to go through this long process before bits of decisions and bits of paper are turned into a bus with four wheels and, one hopes, a driver.

Let us be clear on this point. If there is any service that is still in the pipeline, that is still let us say, a piece of paper on the desk of some overworked traffic clerk, then, as sure as God made little apples, on 28th September, in those cases, the men who are trying to get to work and the women who want to go shopping or get to hospital will stand at the bus stop—and they will stand in vain. The service cannot be there until the contract has been issued.

I hope that we can agree—I make the point as an understatement in order to try and achieve agreement—that there must be at least some possibility that not all of this massive work, with the best will in the world, will have been capable of achievement by the date that has been set so firmly in the Bill. But, you see, my Lords, the problem really is this. Here we are, in October 1985. We cannot possibly tell at this stage whether the thing is going to work 100 per cent., whether there is going to be a massive overrun or whether there is going to be just a small overrun and, if so, where it will happen. These things will emerge to an increasing extent during the winter, as spring follows it, as summer follows spring, and even as next autumn follows the summer. It is then, and only then, that we shall know where, if any, the delays are likely to occur. We are not given, nor do we ask for, any power, but there must be somebody who keeps a beady eye on this and who gets out the whip and the spur—as I hope he will—to make sure that everyone does his best to get the services through. The person best qualified to do it—and perhaps the only one—is the Secretary of State himself.

4 p.m.

It is for these reasons that I am suggesting very strongly that we offer the Secretary of State some kind of safety net to use if he feels that he must. We are not telling him to do anything. We are not offering him any criteria of any substance. We are not telling him how, or when, or if, he is to do it. We are simply suggesting that he has the power, should he need it when the time comes, to see that transition goes as sweetly as it may by doing—what I would call, and I hope that it will be no more than that—a bit of fine tuning.

I know that each one of us would wish to make sure that this transition goes as sweetly as it may for the sake of the passengers—and that, for goodness sake! is what this Bill is all about. That is the sole object of this amendment. I believe this to be a very important ingredient of this Bill. I commend it to your Lordships with all my heart. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, in rising to support this amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, let me say straight away that there is a very wide welcome for the concessions that were made by the Government at Report stage on extending the transitional period by a month. I would not wish it to be thought that we are carping about the timetable in any sense at all. But there are quite genuine worries in various parts of the country as to whether the jobs that need to be done can be squeezed into the timetable as it exists. People are simply frightened at the moment that they cannot get through it.

The noble Lord has given a clear exposition of many of the matters which are worrying people. He dealt mainly with the metropolitan areas. People in the shire counties are also worried. There are, after all, practical aspects of the transition which still await the Secretary of State's regulations and which will be appearing after the Bill is enacted. In order to cope with the amount of paperwork which is likely to be involved, a number of counties are putting in new computer software to deal with the monitoring of registrations. They cannot be sure at this stage that that software will work first time. My experience of computers is that, on the whole, they have teething troubles. It is therefore possible that with the best will in the world some of these tasks cannot be carried out in the timescale. I am not pretending that they will not be carried out, or that people will not try extremely hard to make them work. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, speaking on similar matters at the last stage of the Bill, said that these tasks would be done but they would be done badly because of the timescale involved.

I detect that the Government do not want to have a safety net. I hope that I am wrong there. I have pondered on why that should be. Why is this entirely permissive suggestion not eagerly grasped by the Government? I have come to the conclusion that they are fearful that if the pressure is not kept on local authorities right the way through to the end of the timetable, then there will be backsliding and deliberate attempts to avoid carrying out the tasks which are necessary. I believe that that is a false view of what is happening.

There is no doubt that in most local authorities the work is being carried out as quickly as possible with the resources at their disposal. Indeed, one of the problems that is being faced at the moment is that, in spite of the work which is going on, people are beginning to throw their hands up in county halls, saying, "We simply cannot get through this task in time". They are becoming demoralised and their performance is consequently suffering. It is for them as much as for the Minister that I believe there should be the right to have some fallback position that the Minister, the Secretary of State, can adopt and which he can trigger himself. The noble Lord has made it quite clear that this is solely in the hands of the Secretary of State.

I beg the Government to take this last opportunity of ensuring that the transitional arrangements go through as smoothly as possible with goodwill on all sides, without the demoralisation of all staff, and without, as the noble Lord has dramatically said, people getting to the bus stop in just under a year from now and finding that there is no bus to catch. I heartily support this amendment.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I think we all sympathise with the objective of my noble friend Earl De La Warr. Having read Hansard he will know that we had a lengthy debate about some alternative safety net. This was mooted on Report stage when we did not have the benefit of his company. After that lengthy debate the House decided that in all the circumstances this would be a weakening of the Bill which would be likely to be counter-productive rather than productive.

This amendment has been brought back. My noble friend has been at some pains to explain the provenance of this amendment and that it was included in the group of amendments which was moved on the first day by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That is true. The amendment was not only moved in that group but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke to it at column 363. My noble friend says that he spoke to it briefly. That is a matter of opinion; he spoke to it for as long as he thought was necessary.

The germane point is that we had a very lengthy debate on the subject and at the end of it we had a Division, when all these amendments were considered together. This matter was clearly put to the House and the amendment was rejected by a majority of 30. That is the background and substance of this amendment that my noble friend is now moving. While all of us like to hear from my noble friend, with his immense personal knowledge of this very important industry, I say that in principle this matter has already been voted on.

It is perfectly true that procedurally there is—just—a loophole. I do not know what the Clerk of the Parliaments thinks about that—I see him looking at me a little suspiciously. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not with us again today. Late on the last occasion the noble Lord very skilfully moved Amendment No. 304 separately—it is hundreds of amendments away from the original one—and, after a brief moving of it, and a very brief reply from the Minister, he then withdrew it. I can only suppose that Jove nodded, and instead of my noble friend refusing to accept the withdrawal, it was allowed. Therefore, technically, he has just got a case. However, in substance this point has been debated and has been voted on.

I should like to make a few remarks about the merits of the amendment. To a very large extent it goes to the heart of the Bill because throughout the debates my noble friend has expressed grave doubts as to whether this new concept of a free market in bus operators can work, even with the subsidy system and so on. That is a point of view that one understands, and throughout noble Lords opposite have developed it most skilfully and cogently. However, at the end of the day Parliament decided on what to do on Second Reading.

Therefore, at this Third Reading stage to be asked to consider the general terms of the doubts, to which my noble friend was applying himself, as to whether authorities could be ready, considering the immense difficulties, is coming very close to touching the principle of the Bill itself. My answer is that the time has been carefully considered. My noble friend on the Front Bench has granted us an extra month, which I am sure will be very helpful.

However, I am sure that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is right, that the Government think that if they have a fixed date, it will be a spur to action. If it is clear to all local authorities and others that there is not a fixed date, and that the Minister may extend it again or may take some other action, it would be super-optimistic to expect everyone to be ready on the right date.

After the immense debates that we have had on the subject, it is in the interests of everyone that this Bill should now be put on the statute book and be acted upon, and that all those concerned should know their aims. I believe that, if they do, they will achieve a very good result. For that reason I hope that my noble friend is not disposed to press an amendment on which we have already voted, although I accept the procedural device by which it has been made relatively regular. I hope that he does not intend to press the amendment.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I followed with some diffidence my distinguished noble friend on the Privy Council Bench. There will be enormous pressure on the Secretary of State to put back the date yet again. However, if we have a robust Secretary of State, he can jolly well say "No". I am quite sure that the Prime Minister would appoint a Secretary of State who could say "no". This amendment is important because if matters do not go right, here is the available power.

Perhaps I may work backwards and deal with my noble friend's speech, which has been concerned with one of the main issues raised throughout the Bill. It is not a wrecking issue, but it is a fundamental issue. The main point concerns road service licensing. I believe that we did something about that in Committee and then we left the matter. There have been very few wrecking amendments. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have tried to improve it.

My noble friend Lord De La Warr has expertly explained the amendment to your Lordships. He has been faintly chided that the amendment moved at the Report stage—and I am sure he has read the proceedings of the Report stage—was nothing like the amendment now before us. The amendment moved on Report sought a longer period than the one raised in Committee, which dealt with a plain six months; it was a perfectly acceptable amendment. The amendment on Third Reading is all that one would expect of a Third Reading amendment. Purely and simply, it seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to vary the provisions should matters not be going right. Therefore the amendment should be in the Bill. There is absolutely no more to be said.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, it is quite clear from the speeches that have been made by my noble friends Lord De La Warr and Lord Teviot that they are anxious about the time factor. However, their amendment goes much further than that. It seeks power for the Secretary of State to vary, by order, any of the provisions of Schedule 6 which relate to transitional provisions and savings. They cover a very wide field of legislation. They run to 13 pages and among them are, for example, regulations dealing with compensation for loss of employment, etc.

My noble friends are seeking what one might call a dilatory motion. They could have achieved that perfectly well by seeking to give the Secretary of State power to amend sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the schedule, or even just to amend the dates. But surely it would be quite wrong for your Lordships to give a complete power to vary the whole of the schedule in order to achieve that object, which I must confess I agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent is not an object worthy of achievement.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton has pointed out a clear weakness in this amendment. However, perhaps I may concentrate on the time element alone, which is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He said that a number of shire counties would not manage on the timetable which is set. I believe that he is underestimating the competence of a local authority in this respect, or he is agreeing rather too early to some special pleading which may be coming to him from some directions. I should have thought that it would be possible for a competent local authority, with all the strength and experience of its transport department, to map out the essential routes now, well ahead of deregulation day, well ahead of tendering day; to produce a format for the tender advertisements, so that as soon as they identify those routes which need to go out to tender, they have all the information ready; for the committee timetable to be set; and for the decisions to be taken on the dot. I should have thought that was all perfectly possible.

If this amendment was adopted on the timing element alone, imagine what would happen. I doubt whether, on the whole, it would be the shire counties which do not succeed in this; but there will be other local authorities which are quite interested in demonstrating that the Bill is extremely difficult to implement, which will be shouting the odds to the Secretary of State to alter the date by which the tenders have to be completed, and which will be shouting the odds about other matters which the amendment allows to be varied by the Secretary of State.

Should this amendment be incorporated in the Bill, there will be an enormous demonstration of the lack of willingness to get going with the Act and to see whether it really will work. I believe that it is a most unwise amendment. Whether or not, in fact, we rejected it by 30 votes on Report, I very much hope that we do not accept it this time.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, there is one curious point that I should like to raise in relation to this amendment. A very long time ago we were presented with this complex Bill, which was to take effect over a period of time, and we debated at considerable length at all its stages the appropriate timetable, which was fixed. What is now proposed is to give the Secretary of State a discretion to vary the timetable and, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, some other matters as well.

Normally if ministerial discretion is provided for, this is at the request of the Minister. One can point to other Bills where it is suggested that the Minister will bring this or that into effect by order to give him the opportunity to see how things develop. But in this case the Secretary of State has not asked for this discretion. How can this House confer upon him a discretion for which he has not asked and expect that this will be taken seriously? If by 30 votes the original Question was decided, it was decided, and I find this amendment an extraordinary attempt to go back on it.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, explained fully the purpose of this amendment and why my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, were attached to it. In some ways I wonder why we are bothering about this at all, why we are bothering to offer the Minister, the Secretary of State, this lifeline, or safety net, as it has been called. The only reason is that practically all those concerned about the Bill at this stage, in terms of its working, are particularly interested in transport, and we are concerned that people should be given good public transport on the date that has been specified.

As to the question of the date, perhaps my noble friend Lord McIntosh in his earlier amendment, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords and particularly the noble Lords, Lord Nugent and Lord Renton—it was suggested that this amendment was a way to avoid the fact that my noble friend's amendment was defeated by 30 votes—was too presumptous in giving all these dates and putting a completely new set of dates into the Bill. Perhaps it was just too much for the Government to accept, and I can understand that.

However, we should be clear about one thing: until a month ago the Government were absolutely firm about the dates they were putting then. There was no question about it. The dates they were putting forward a month ago were firm dates. Then suddenly we got one month added to the date, so the Government had second thoughts during the progress of the Bill through this House. One of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when speaking about the additional month, was that it would land in mid-term to make it easier for school transport.

What we have been saying all along is that there is a massive reorganisation going on in local authorities at the same time. The schools will be going back at the original date that was suggested, and when the new date was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, he made a point that it would be mid-term. He was forgetting, of course, that mid-term is variable throughout the country. There are a fair number of areas where it will not be mid-term but the middle of the autumn term or the height of the school year. Therefore the question of a firm date has never been fixed. What we believe and suspect is that in the process of registration, in the process of trying to make this Bill work, and with the setting up of the new companies, with the reorganisation of local government there could be problems. It is because we think that there could be these problems that we have suggested that this power be given to the Secretary of State.

I always bow to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when he interprets an amendment and looks at a Bill. I would perhaps be willing to accept that it looks as though this goes rather further than merely the date. However, I would still argue that the intepretation I put on it—with perhaps less authority than he can command—is that if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the necessary steps to achieve an orderly abolition of road service licensing can be obtained in the prescribed time, he may by order vary such of the provisions of that Schedule as he thinks necessary for that purpose". The Secretary of State obviously found a few months ago that the collar was getting a little tight in regard to time and he had to extend it by a month; and if the same thing is happening again the Secretary of State should have the discretion to be able to adjust and make provisions in the schedule so that an orderly transition from the present system to the new system proposed by the Secretary of State and in the Bill is possible.

All noble Lords who have spoken so far in support of this amendment have done so in the spirit that now that the Bill is a fait accompli we want it to work. We do not want people to be waiting in vain in the cold for buses in the late autumn next year. We want the buses to be coming along at the proper time, and we do not believe that all this can be done in the time allotted. There is a possibility that it will not be possible to do it, and the Secretary of State should have this final power to enable a smooth transition.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, my noble friend Lord De La Warr was abroad when we debated this issue on 14th October at the Report stage of this Bill. I must say that my pleasure at seeing my noble friend among us once again is exceeded only by my horror at the thought that we have to debate precisely the same issue which was debated and. I had hoped, was decided by a majority of 30 some 10 days ago.

My noble friend's amendment invites the Secretary of State to put off the Bill's coming into effect to an unspecified date, for reasons which my noble friend, in moving his amendment in his normal able and felicitous way, represented as being helpful to the bus industry and being helpful to the Government; though as my noble friend Lord Beloff pointed out, my right honourable friend has not exactly asked my noble friend to move this amendment today.

Let us consider the effect of this amendment. The Bill requires bus operators to register their new services in most cases a full eight months before they are going to begin to run them on deregulation day. Incidentally I say to my noble friend that while he was abroad this has become the end of October, if your Lordships agree to amendments which I shall be moving later today, and not the end of September. It is going to be quite a testing job for bus operators to look ahead eight months and decide what they can run commercially. But of course it is going to be good for the local authorities because it is going to give them a good period of notice about the commercial services which operators intend to run, which will then enable authorities to conduct a sensible tendering process for the services that they need to subsidise—a whole area of the Bill about which we have all been concerned and which my noble friend mentioned particularly in his speech.

However, operators really cannot be expected to register new services in February of next year with a view to running them the following October and then, under this amendment, not be sure that deregulation will not in fact be deferred well beyond October 1986 until who knows when. Nor can operators be expected to register new services on the understanding that, under the Bill, network subsidy will have ceased by deregulation day, only to find their rivals still receiving blanket network subsidies because, under the amendment, deregulation day has been put off to some indeterminate future date.

This is an amendment which would alter the rules of the game after operators had committed themselves to run new services by registration. It would not be helpful to them. It would be intolerable. My noble friend will forgive me if I say that I do not think he has had much regard to what was said on this amendment 10 days ago. In that debate the Government's judgment was supported in your Lordships' House that operators will not relish further delays in getting registrations completed next February and that eight months after that would be time enough for authorities to have completed their tendering decisions.

My noble friends, Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lady Carnegy were critical of this amendment and my noble friend Lord Renton, with his enormous experience of drafting and the effects of amendments, has warned me and your Lordships that the amendment is more fundamental than it perhaps may appear at first sight.

My conclusion, if my noble friend will forgive my saying so, is that I cannot help wondering whether my noble friend Lord De La Warr does not perhaps wish to prevent deregulation day coming into effect at all. The effect of this amendment would be to issue an open invitation for deliberate delay so that the order-making power in the amendment could be invoked. As I have tried to show, this would be unfair to operators, it would also be unfair to the local authorities and it would not be in the interests of the bus industry. I hope that my noble friend will not press this amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Earl De La Warr

My Lords, perhaps in saying a few words I can put the mind of my noble friend Lord Belstead at rest about the possibility that I have not made myself fully aware of the contents of the discussions that took place while I was in San Francisco. I assure him that immediately I left the aeroplane, jet lagged as I was, I was at Hansard. I was at it again when the lag was over and I was at it again over the weekend and yesterday. He may be sure that I can remember every word, probably a great deal better than many noble Lords who were here at the time. That is the way it goes.

I have to say that I shall lump together, I am afraid, some of the speakers—my noble friends Lord Nugent, Lord Renton and Lord Beloff who, with no disrespect to them, I have come to know as the "heavy mob" in this series of debates—who managed between them to make one of the weakest defences that I have ever heard. They fell back, as do governments when they feel up against it, on procedure. They fell back on drafting. It was left, if I may say so, to my noble friend Lady Carnegy to produce the only real argument that was worth listening to. That was the argument raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and dealt with very well by my noble friend Lord Belstead, that there could be a demotivating effect. Of course there could be a demotivating effect. In no series of arguments does anyone, least of all I hope me, say that there are not two sides to every question. One has on the one hand the danger—it would be foolish not to admit that there is a danger—of demotivation, and on the other side there is the possibility with the best will in the world that some things will go wrong and people will be left at the bus stop. What one has to decide when the time comes to make a decision, as assuredly it will come, is which set of arguments is to be regarded as the most important. I have admitted the demotivation argument, but I do not think it is that weak.

The need to ensure for the sake of the long run that transition (that is the short run) goes sweetly and that no one is left waiting for the bus that does not come is the argument that has the greatest weight. I hope that at least my noble friend Lord Belstead will accept that that is the way I have considered it. I was sad when towards the end of his reasonable speech he either used or implied the word "wrecking". Oh, Lord Belstead, come now!

I believe this strongly. I believe the Bill is all about people and the welfare of people who travel by bus, largely because they have no other way. I rate that far higher than the other set of arguments. I can do no more, because there is really nothing more to say, than to ask your Lordships to decide now by the usual method.

4.37 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Lockwood, B.
Amherst, E.	Longford, E.
Ardwick, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Aylestone, L.	McNair, L.
Barnett, L.	Mais, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Mar, C.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Mayhew, L.
Bottomley, L.	Mellish, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Meston, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mishcon, L.
Chitnis, L.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Collison, L.	Mountevans, L.
Crawshaw of Aintree, L.	Mulley, L.
David, B.	Nicol, B.
De La Warr, E. [Teller.]	Ogmore, L.
Denington, B.	Oram, L.
Diamond, L.	Parry, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Peart, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Phillips, B.
Falkender, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Plant, L.
Gallacher, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Hampton, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Hayter, L.	Rochester, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Ross of Marnock, L.
Ilchester, E.	Russell of Liverpool, L.
Jacques, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Jeger, B.	Saville, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Seear, B.
John-Mackie, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Kagan, L.	Serota, B.
Kilmarnock, L.	Shackleton, L.
Lawrence, L.	Stallard, L.
Leatherland, L.	Stedman, B.
Listowel, E.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Strabolgi, L.
Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Teviot, L.	Whaddon, L.
Tordoff, L. [Teller.]	White, B.
Underhill, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Wallace of Coslany, L.	Willis, L.
Walston, L.	Wilson of Langside, L.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Wells-Pestell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Keyes, L.
Ampthill, L.	Killearn, L.
Auckland, L.	Kimball, L.
Bancroft, L.	Kinnaird, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Lane-Fox, B.
Bellwin, L.	Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.
Beloff, L.	Long, V.
Belstead, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Bessborough, E.	Luke, L.
Blake, L.	McFadzean, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Margadale, L.
Brookes, L.	Marley, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Butterworth, L.
Caithness, E.	Merrivale, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Milverton, L.
Cathcart, E.	Mottistone, L.
Cayzer, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Cowley, E.	Moyola, L.
Cox, B.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Craigavon. V.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Orkney, E.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Davidson, V.	Pender, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Penrhyn, L.
Denning, L.	Plummer of St Marylebone,L.
Dilhorne, V.
Dormer, L.	Polwarth, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Portland, D.
Eccles, V.	Renton, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Renwick, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Rodney, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Romney, E.
Elton, L.	Rugby, L.
Erne, E.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Ferrers, E.	St. Davids, V.
Fortescue, E.	Selkirk, E.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Gainford, L.	Slim, V.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Somers, L.
Gisborough, L.	Strathspey, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Swansea, L.
Gridley, L.	Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Terrington, L.
	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Hankey, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Trumpington, B.
Harvington, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Vickers, B.
Henley, L.	Vivian, L.
Hives, L.	Ward of Witley, V.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Westbury, L.
Hood, V.	Whitelaw, V.
Hooper, B.	Wise, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Wolfson, L.
Inchcape, E.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.45 p.m.

Clause 6 [Registration of local services]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 7, line 10, leave out ("from a person who") and insert ("if—(a) the applicant").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if, with Amendment No. 2, I speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

Amendment No. 4: Page 7, line 14, at end insert— ("(b) the traffic commissioner is satisfied of the suitability of the vehicles with which the applicant proposes to operate the service, and the proposed route, stopping places and times of services, having regard to traffic flow and safety, the avoidance of unreasonable harm to the environment and the needs of the persons likely to wish to use the service.").

Amendment No. 5: Page 8, line 47, at end insert— ("( ) Regulations shall be made for the purpose of enabling an applicant or any other aggrieved person to appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of a traffic commissioner under subsection (4)(b) above.").

This was a matter which was not dealt with on Report. In fact, the actual principle with which 1 am dealing was not dealt with even at Committee stage. When the Bill was first introduced in another place it was not clear how much detailed information an operator would have to lodge with a traffic commissioner when registering a service. As a result of various discussions and consultations with interested bodies there is now clarification as to what is to be included in the application form and on the register.

However, there is an unsatisfactory situation remaining. The traffic regulation procedure set out in Clause 7 of the Bill will enable some of the worst traffic problems to be averted or alleviated. Yet there is a serious gap. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when dealing with Clause 7 at Committee stage, said that it was designed to give protection against dangerous traffic conditions only where there is likely to be danger or serious congestion. Perhaps I may quote from Clause 7(4). This makes it absolutely clear that the conditions are limited. They are: in order to—

1. (a) prevent danger to road users; or
2. (b) reduce severe traffic congestion".

It may well be that some vehicles which operators propose to use may be unsuitable for the particular roads along which they will run or unsuitable for the potential passengers they seek to serve.

Many examples have been given in previous discussions, but I shall refer to only three. The nature of the body of a vehicle may be such that it will make it more likely to overrun pavements at corners. Noble Lords will themselves know areas where, because of the layout, a particular kind of vehicle always overruns a corner. This happens at my local underground station every time such a vehicle comes round, it cannot be avoided because of the nature of the vehicle.

There may be narrow streets where a particular vehicle will be too large and may even be a source of danger, not to other road users but to dwellings close to the carriageway. There may be the use of second-hand vehicles with steps which are high for some people, and in some areas there may be a higher proportion of people for which that may present serious problems. These matters are not dealt with in the conditions in Clause 7 which I have read out. I suggest that it is better to impose control at the outset rather than to have to deal with any subsequent troubles that may arise in the course of experience. The amendments enable a traffic commissioner to refuse an application of registration if he is not satisfied about these matters. There can surely be no objection to that proposal.

There is already one control on registration imposed under the Bill. A person has first to obtain a PSV operator's licence before he can register a service. That is right and proper. It is surely also right and proper that commonsense, safety and environmental requirements should also be satisfied. The decision will rest with the traffic commissioner who will be considering the application. Your Lordships will note that Amendment No. 5 makes provision for there to be an appeal on this matter by the applicant or any other aggrieved person to the Secretary of State. This is an important issue which I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I feel that I really must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, at least on his ingenuity in devising a group of amendments which succinctly overturns virtually the whole purpose of abolishing road service licensing and replacing it by registration. I also must take issue with him on what he said about it not being discussed before. A quite similar amendment to this was discussed at length at Committee; and Amendment No. 45 (with those linked with it) was voted on and defeated.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has sought to convince me and the House that this amendment differs in substance from the one which was defeated at Committee stage. Regrettably, from his point of view, he certainly failed to convince me. This amendment does not refer directly to other operators as did the previous amendment. But if your Lordships look at it and you first of all refer to the needs and then go on to Amendment No. 5 which refers to the giving to any other aggrieved person a right of appeal, that gives the game away; for another operator would say that his service adequately met the needs of the people likely to wish to use the applicant's proposed service, and that he was aggrieved at the granting of the application.

There we are! The effect of these amendments would be to make registration scarcely distinguishable from the present system it replaces. It gets worse than that. In some respects it would make the situation more rigorous because more power would be placed in the hands of the traffic commissioner, and my right honourable friends, if they chose to play it that way, could have more power than they have under the present road service licensing. The more I examine these amendments the less I like them. The traffic commissioner cannot register a service unless he is satisfied on a wide range of issues, wider than those addressed by road service licensing or by Clause 7 of this Bill. This is a stricter test than road service licensing under which a licence must be granted unless the commissioner is satisfied that it is against the public interest.

It could well be harder to register a service under the noble Lord's registration system than under the 1980-style licensing system. Moreover, under road service licensing, in a competitive case the commissioner must take into account the views of local authorities, the police and so on and take an informed decision on that basis. There is nothing of that in these amendments. There would be no objection rights; but there would be appeal rights. They would not be confined to local authorities and competing operators but would be open to any aggrieved person. This would involve my right honourable friend in local service matters more heavily than he has needed to be involved under road service licensing.

I must say that this amounts to a most fundamental amendment, very close indeed to a wrecking amendment. At this very late stage, it would not make registration unworkable; it would make it work in a way very different from the way that the Government intended and that Parliament (including this House at the Second Reading debate and at the Committee stage) has up to now endorsed. It is an amendment that would transform the registration system into a form of licensing in all but name, and that would seriously inhibit the innovation and response to public demand that we are confident the Bill will provide.

Finally, in case any of your Lordships have been persuaded by the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, may I say that the regime he has proposed is seriously defective in that it makes no provision for change. It applies at the time of registration but apparently does not affect variations under subsection (7). It does not allow the traffic commissioner to react if circumstances change and it apparently allows any operator to vary a service which he registers without it having to satisfy these criteria. I think that we should be taking a retrograde step if the House accepted this amendment.

Lord Bruce-Gardyne

My Lords, I joined with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, two or three nights ago to resist a proposition which to my mind would have enabled members of the pharmaceutical profession to control entry into that profession. I must confess that I am a little surprised to find the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, seeking (as I understand it) to introduce at this late stage into this Bill provisions which would confer a similar privilege on existing bus operators. Unlike, I suspect, almost any others of your Lordships' House, I confront regularly the propensity of existing buses to do curious things like mounting street corners when I am traversing London, as I do day by day, on my pedal bicycle. So I am well aware of the sort of hazards to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred in introducing this amendment and with which he sought to wring your Lordships' withers.

I must say that I have never noticed that those of us who choose other means of transport, such as the pedal bicycle, are particularly exposed to risk of life and limb under the present circumstances. I find it quite extraordinary that under the system of more open competition which this Bill is designed to create future operators should be interested in placing upon the roads vehicles which, if we are to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would actually appear to be remarkably unattractive to potential travellers.

I can hardly believe that that is the way in which they would seek to maximise the business that they were seeking to do. Personally, I am driven to conclude with my noble friend Lord Caithness that there is an element of (how shall I say?) sabotage built into this amendment which, as my noble friend has already pointed out, is hardly an entire novelty in the lengthy discussions we have had on this Bill. Perhaps even more as a pedal cyclist than as a user of buses, I hope very much that your Lordships will follow the advice of my noble friend and will firmly resist the amendment.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, reference was made by the Minister to my ingenuity. Frankly, I am amazed at the ingenuity of the two speeches we have had in opposition to this amendment. Your Lordships may look carefully at Clause 7. I have already referred to the conditions on which a commission must be satisfied. Do they present danger to road users? Do they occasion severe traffic congestion? Later on in the clause we find that the purposes for which traffic regulation and conditions may be determined are the regulation of the routes of services, stopping places for services, the times when vehicles used in providing services may stop at such stopping places and such other matters as may be prescribed.

Most of those matters are included in my Amendment No. 4. All that I have included in addition are the words: is satisfied of the suitability of the vehicles. I should have thought common sense would say that a traffic commissioner must be satisfied as to the suitability of the vehicles. Unless this amendment is in the Bill, how are we to deal with a vehicle which is too long for particular corners? And how are we to deal with a vehicle which is going down narrow streets which is not causing danger to cyclists but which may be causing danger to dwellings which are abutting on the carriageway. There may well be areas where there are cycle tracks and they could cause danger.

I am amazed that the Government do not accept this amendment. It is suggested that I have made no allowance for a change of circumstances. The Government could therefore have accepted this amendment and, in the course of procedure, as we have amended the clause, it could have been re-amended when it goes back to the Commons. As for suggesting that I am sabotaging proposals, what we are trying to do is to put into the provisions more common sense and to provide an extra precaution with the right of appeal. I do not think this is a matter on which I should divide the House. I should like to divide the House but I shall not do so; although I believe it is a principle which the Government would have been wise to heed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 7, line 13, after ("bus") insert ("belonging to that person").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which is a small but important technical amendment. I shall be happy to enlarge on it should your Lordships so wish. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]

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

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 16, line 34, at end insert ("or (as the case may be) the use of vehicles under such licences").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which repairs a minor error. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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

[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 8:

Leave out Clause 16 and insert the following new clause:

("Taxi licensing: control of numbers.

16. The provisions of the Town and Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages, as incorporated in any enactment (whenever passed), shall have effect—

1. (a)as if in section 37, the words "such number of and as they think fit" were omitted; and
2. (b)as if they provided that the grant of a licence may be refused, for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted, if, but only if, the person authorised to grant licenses is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 74.

Amendment No. 74: Schedule 7, page 177, line 12, at end insert—

("General

1. In England and Wales, the provisions made by or under any enactment which apply to motor vehicles used—

1. (a) to carry passengers under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum; and
2. (b) to ply for hire for such use; shall apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than nine passengers as they apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than eight passengers.").

These amendments are concerned with the drafting of Clause 16. We all remember Clause 16 from the Committee and Report stages. I can assure your Lordships that they do not alter the effect of these provisions but change only the way in which they are made. Taking first the amendment to Clause 16. this replaces subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the clause concerning the control of taxi numbers in England and Wales. During the Committee and Report stages debates the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon and Lord Denning, supported by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, expressed much concern about the drafting of these provisions. In the light of the views expressed and of the most helpful correspondence with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, we have tabled this amendment.

It makes the provisions in a different way and one which would seem to be clearer in the circumstances. The root of all the problems is the archaism of the parent statute, the 1847 Act. That will have to be brought up to date following the review we shall undertake as soon as this legislation is out of the way. By changing the drafting in this way we have avoided the need for the provisions of subsection (3), which some found particularly offensive, and have avoided expressions such as "the commissioners" and "the prescribed distance", which may have been misleading.

The amendment to Schedule 7 meets a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, that subsection (4) was not essentially related to the earlier subsections. This amendment moves it in its entirety into Schedule 7, as being a minor amendment to existing provisions. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his help and also for the help given by the noble and learned Lords. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for both these amendments, which overcome defects in the form and drafting of Clause 16, to which attention was drawn by the two noble and learned Lords, my noble friend Lord Peyton and myself, both at Committee and Report stages. My noble colleagues are unable to be here today but the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Denning, have asked to join with me in expressing appreciation to my noble friend and his colleagues.

We are all relieved and thankful that subsection (3) has gone altogether. It was quite unnecessary and we never accepted the reasons given for its retention, among which was the fact that subsection (2) amended Section 37 of the 1847 Act by the textual method. The draftsman has overcome his problem, which we did not share, by redrafting subsection (2) as a non-textual amendment, although subsection (1) retains drafting by the textual method. So be it; we have done our best. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is particularly pleased, however, that in redrafting subsection (2) the reference to a district council has been omitted. It is such a relief when Ministers do not come back to your Lordships and say, "I am sorry, but the draftsman won't let me do it." But on this occasion that has not happened, and we are indeed grateful.

There is just one other point. By a slip of the tongue,my noble friend referred to Schedule 7, I think, but according to the Marshalled List of amendments, Amendment No. 74 is an amendment to Schedule 6.Perhaps—

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. There is a mistake on the Marshalled List, and perhaps this would be an opportune moment to clarify the position. Schedule 7 starts with Amendment No. 74, so the Marshalled List is wrong for a number of amendments from No. 74 onwards.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I am most grateful. I thought there was something strange, and I am glad that my noble friend has corrected that. It simply means, therefore, that on the Marshalled List we should write in the words "Schedule 6" across the first line of Amendment No. 74. I am much obliged.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has actually made the same slip of the tongue. He said that we should write in "Schedule 6", but of course it should be "Schedule 7".

Lord Renton

My Lords, may I say that I personally am grateful that subsection (4) has been detached from Clause 16, because it had nothing to do with it. It has now been well placed in Schedule 7, where it properly belongs. We are indeed grateful.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 [Objections to application for PSV operator's licence]:

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 26, line 27, at end insert ("and any holder of a PSV operator's licence may make representations to the traffic commissioner concerning the application.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. When your Lordships considered this Bill on Report I tabled a manuscript amendment. It was done at very short notice and, having listened to my noble friend on the main amendment which had the manuscript amendment attached to it, I felt it would not be wise to move the amendment at that stage. I gave notice that I would bring it up at this stage.

I accept that it would be an uncompetitive practice to allow existing operators to object to an application for an "O" licence and to have a right of appeal. On the other hand, it is the operator who is most likely to have knowledge of shortcomings which make some applicants unsuitable as providers of a public service. Let me give an example based on fact. Licensed operator "A" having gone into liquidation, the directors of the company immediately form a new company, "B", and apply for a licence. In a case such as that there are many commercial debts and inevitably there are fellow operators who have suffered from this default. The resurrection of the new operator from the remains of the old will not infrequently involve dubious arrangements, including possibly the taking over of vehicles which belonged not to the old operator but to a hire-purchase company, and without any payment.

This is not a flight of fantasy; it is the sort of thing that can happen and it is the operators who know well that it would be unfair to potential passengers, as well as to the business community, to allow such a company an operator's licence. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister effectively recognised the need for operators' views to be considered in moving his amendments on Report. He said that operators who had good reason to know that an applicant ought not to have a licence could, and should, tell the commissioner, who will take account of what he is told. That is the logic of the situation.

However, I submit that the existing provisions of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 are not so specific as was my noble friend. Undoubtedly, the traffic commissioners have a power to accept evidence from any source, but one would not go so far as to say that they have an obligation. My amendment seeks to remedy this situation and to put beyond doubt what my noble friend clearly accepts ought to be the case. The matter is as simple as that. There is undoubted agreement on what should be permitted, but uncertainty as to the statutory basis for it. The question should be beyond doubt and therefore I ask your Lordships to make this amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.

Earl De La Warr

My Lords, I am interested in this amendment, because I played some part in the decision of your Lordships to change this clause quite substantially at Committee stage. As with the other amendment which we discussed a little earlier, I read this very carefully, I saw what your Lordships had done by way of changing the clause again, and came to the conclusion that it had been very substantially improved because, to be honest, I thought that in one or two ways the original amendment overdid it a little. So I am quite happy with the clause as it stands. I hate having to "rat" on my noble friend, but on the basis—if nothing else—that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, perhaps it is better not to give the operator these rights. I am sure that he will make his views known, anyhow. So I suggest that we leave the matter as it is and do not amend the Bill in this say.

Lord Renton

My Lords, on this occasion I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Teviot. One is reminded of the rule of interpretation which lawyers express in dog Latin, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius". which means that if in a statute one particular factor which might be relevant is mentioned, the factors which are not relevant are deemed to be excluded. We find in this subsection (1) that any chief officer of police or local authority may object, but nobody else is mentioned. In order to put the matter beyond doubt, as my noble friend Lord Teviot has suggested, I could see an advantage in accepting his amendment.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Teviot indeed raised this matter at Report stage, and I agree with my noble friend that on that occasion I made the point on behalf of the Government that we were satisfied that there is no obstacle in the legislation as it stands to public service vehicle operators, or indeed anyone else for that matter, making representations about applicants for public service vehicle operators' licences. If these representations are relevant, the commissioner will take them into account.

I suggest to my noble friend that the amendment that he is proposing would not add to this. Indeed, if I may pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton, by giving a right explicitly to the holder of a public service vehicle operator's licence, it could surely be held to take away the right of anyone else to make relevant representations. For instance, I can well imagine others, such as suppliers of vehicles or equipment, who might have some very relevant representations to make about the financial standing of an applicant.

I would say to my noble friend Lord Renton that this is all distinct from the right of local authorities and chief officers of police to make objections, not representations, under Clause 25, which carries with it the right to appeal to my right honourable friend if their objections are not sustained under Clause 31.

Therefore, I suggest to my noble friend Lord Teviot and, rather hesitantly, to my noble friend Lord Renton, that what we are talking about here, in this amendment of my noble friend Lord Teviot, is the right of public service vehicle operators to make representations. I am submitting to the House that if we put that in, then, under the dictum of which my noble friend Lord Renton reminded us, we would run into the danger of making it appear as though public service vehicle operatiors would have the right to make representations, and perhaps nobody else would. I repeat, at the risk of being tedious, that this is distinct from the right under this clause of chief officers of police and local authorities only to make objections with a right of appeal.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I could make a long speech over this, but I shall not do so. I am most grateful—it was totally unexpected—to my noble and learned friend Lord Renton—

Lord Renton

Not in this House!

Lord Teviot

However, my Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton made an extremely valid point My noble friend Lord Belstead then came in and covered one or two extra points which helped me, but which he did not mention on Report—not that he was asked to do so. So, while not being very happy with the situation, I feel that his words will be very useful and will be studied, and, if necessary, they may have to be dealt with in future legislation which is an open-ended commitment. My noble friend Lord De La Wan-disagreed with this amendment which was totally unexpected. It rather goes to show that throughout this Bill he and I have not been absolutely Tweedledum and Tweedledee. However, I feel that it was a valid point to make. I am grateful to your Lordships for having listened to the discussion on this amendment and for the two contributions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 26, line 38, after ("London") insert ("or a Passenger Transport Executive").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can deal with this amendment with a whiff and a puff. Clause 25 is to allow any chief officer of police or local authority to object to an application for a public service vehicle operator's licence. The list of authorities in subsection (4) is deficient as it does not include the authorities responsible for passenger transport in metropolitan areas, who are the passenger transport executives. My Lords, I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am totally persuaded by my noble friend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 26, line 40, at end insert—

("(5) This section does not apply in relation to any application for a special licence (within the meaning of section 12 of the Transport Act 1985).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a further amendment to bring the new Section 14A of the 1981 Act more into line with the rest of the Bill. Applications for special licences under Clause 12 are not like other applications, because the requirements of Section 14 of the 1981 Act—good repute and so forth—do not apply. Quality control is exercised, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne explained during the Committee stage, by the taxi licensing authority, the district council or the metropolitan police in London. The traffic commissioner has therefore no discretion in granting the PSV operator's licence. It follows that any objection rights in such cases would be ineffective. This amendment recognises that. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 57 [Passenger Transport Areas, Authorities and Executives]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 54, line 4, leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert—

("(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority for any passenger transport area to formulate from time to time general policies with respect to the descriptions of public passenger transport services they consider it appropriate for the Executive for their area to secure for the purpose of meeting any public transport requirements within their area which in the view of the Authority would not be met apart from any action taken by the Executive for that purpose.

(2) The Authority shall seek and have regard to the advice of the Executive for their area in formulating their policies under subsection (1) of this section.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Executive for any passenger transport area to secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as they consider it appropriate to secure for meeting any public transport requirements within their area in accordance with policies formulated by the Authority for their area under subsection (1) of this section.

(4) The Executive shall have power to enter into an agreement providing for service subsidies for the purpose of securing the provision of any service under subsection (3) of this section; but their power to do so—

1. (a) shall be exercisable only where the service in question would not be provided without subsidy; and
2. (b) is subject to sections 89 to 92 of the Transport Act 1985 (tendering for local services, etc.).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, since Report stage we have examined very carefully, with parliamentary counsel, Clause 57 of this Bill. I may say that, in speaking to Amendment No. 12, I should like to refer also to Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 48,49, 51, 77 and 80:

Amendment No. 15: Page 56, line 28, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(1)").

Amendment No. 17: Page 56, line 44, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(3)").

Amendment No. 30: Clause 63, page 65, line 7, after ("county") insert ("which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose;").

Amendment No. 31: Page 65, line 17, after ("area") insert ("which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose;").

Amendment No. 32: Page 65, line 21, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment No. 33: Page 65, line 33, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert— ("(5) A non-metropolitan district council in England and Wales shall have power to secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as they consider it appropriate to secure to meet any public transport requirements within their area which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose. (6) For the purpose of securing the provision of any service under subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a) or (as the case may be) under subsection (5) above any council shall have power to enter into an agreement providing for service subsidies; but their power to do so—

1. (a) shall be exercisable only where the service in question would not be provided without subsidy; and
2. (b) is subject to sections 89 to 92 of this Act.").

Amendment No. 36: Page 68, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("cases where the service in question would not be provided without subsidy").

Amendment No. 48: Schedule 3, page 155, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert—

("(a) subsection (1)(a) shall be omitted;").

Amendment No. 49: Page 156, line 2, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(3)").

Amendment No. 51: Page 158, line 43, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(3)").

Amendment No. 77: Schedule 7, page 179, line 4, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(1)").

Amendment No. 80: Schedule 8, page 185, line 53, column 3, after ("15") insert ("subsection (1)(a),").

These amendments are all intended to meet points which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, drew to our attention; in other words, to remove any possible scope for misunderstanding about the rules of the passenger transport authorities and the passenger transport executives which could conceivably arise from the present drafting of the Bill.

Our intention is that the PTAs will be responsible for assessing the transport requirements which exist within their areas. They should be responsible also for formulating general policies about the descriptions of services which should be secured to meet those requirements. It should then be the responsibility of the passenger transport executives to secure the services which in their professional judgment they believe appropriate to implement the policies of the authority. They should have power to do so by entering into agreements for service subsidies, subject to the tendering provisions of the Bill, but this power is to be exercised in accordance with the authority's general policies.

There are four important changes which I wish to draw to the attention of the House. First, Amendment No. 12 makes it quite clear, I hope, that the executive's decisions about which services to secure flow from the PTA's general policy. The authority's duty to formulate general policies appears at the beginning of the new Section 9A which Clause 57 inserts into the 1968 Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may feel that that is an improvement.

Secondly, the wording of Amendment No. 12 seeks also to put beyond any doubt that it is the authority's function both to take a view of the public transport requirements which would not be met were the PTE not to take action and formulate general policies on the description of services which should be secured to meet those requirements. I believe one of the points that particularly concerned the noble Lord opposite was that the Bill did not make clear that the role of identifying requirements was one for the authority to discharge. I hope he will feel that there is clarification now in the drafting.

Thirdly, the proposed subsection (2) is also designed to describe rather more fully the nature of the relationship between the PTA and the PTE, by making it clear that the PTE will be the main source of advice for the PTA in forming its polices. I hope that too will be felt to be an improvement. Finally, subsections (3) and (4) state the powers and duties of the PTE.

In summary, the Government are proposing these amendments to meet specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, at Report stage. I believed then, and still believe now, that the Bill did achieve our aims. However, having had the benefit of reconsidering the noble Lord's arguments, I hope your Lordships will feel that these amendments are an improvement, and that the noble Lord will feel we now have the drafting right.

I have explained to your Lordships that I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 30 to 33 to Clause 63. The councils who secure subsidised services outside passenger transport areas are of course performing the same role as the PTAs and their executives in a number of respects in securing services. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 30 to 33 is to ensure that no confusion can arise from differences of wording between Clauses 57 and 63. They bring Clause 63, in so far as it relates to the functions of securing the provision of services, into line with the amendments I have been describing.

Once again. I reassure the House that I am not asking your Lordships to consider changes in the Government's proposals for the powers of local authorities. These amendments are simply designed to achieve clarity and consistency. Amendments Nos. 36, 49 and 51 and 77, and the other amendments, make consequential changes to Clause 65, and Schedules 3 and 7. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am certain that my noble friend Lord Carmichael would wish me to express grateful thanks to the Minister for heeding the arguments he made at Report stage and for introducing Amendment No. 12. By and large, we welcome the four new subsections but there are one or two points on which I should like the Minister to give some assurances.

In subsection (1) it is made clear that the role of the elected representatives in the authority will be to determine public transport requirements of their area. I should like the Minister to confirm that reference to "general policies" can include policies specific to a local area. I am thinking for example of the increased level of service that may be required to improve access to a new industrial estate. Would such a consideration be covered by the reference to "general policies"?

I am a little concerned about subsection (2). It requires the authority to, seek and have regard to the advice of the Executive for their area in formulating their policies under subsection (1)". It is obvious, and here I agree with the Minister, that the executive must be the principal policy adviser to the authority. I am certain that the views of the executive should be—and I am sure that they will be—sought and taken into account by the authority when formulating its policies. However, it will be recalled that my noble friend Lord Carmichael said at Report stage that the executive are the people who will know about the running and organisation of transport, but that determining an area's public transport requirements requires something more. It requires an assessment to be made of the social and economic needs of different parts of the county and the need to bring particular areas together. This requires a different kind of expertise from that in the transport industry reflected through the executive.

At present the metropolitan county councils employ their own officers to provide this wider perspective to public transport policy advice. This was acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Transport, Mrs. Chalker, during a debate in the other place. We are all aware that the county council officers face considerable uncertainty as to their future careers; their respective employers go out of existence on 31st March next year.

We are further concerned that subsection (2) appears to transfer policy advisory role to the executive. I ask the Minister to confirm that subsection (2) is not intended to preclude the possibility of an authority employing its own policy advisers with respect to social and economic aspects, to complement the executive's advice on operational service matters.

During the debate in another place on the Local Government Bill to which I referred, at col. 1472 of Hansard for 19th February, the Minister of Transport acknowledged that necessity and said: Social and economic considerations will clearly be at the heart of the thinking of the new PTA joint boards". The Minister continued: Nothing will carry greater weight than that". It may be the Government's view that in future all policy advice should come from within the executive. Indeed, there may be merit in both groups of technical advisers working together in one body. If such is the Government's intention in proposing subsection (2), then does the Minister acknowledge that this will require appropriate county council officers? One is talking here about a very small number of specialist staff to be transferred to the executive.

If that is so, can the Minister give an undertaking that arrangements will be made to ensure this is achieved by transfer order under the terms of the Local Government Act 1985? I understand that there may be some difficulty in this because at present the executives are not considered as successor bodies under the terms of the Act; but I am given to understand this can be rectified by the Secretary of State using the powers invested in him by the Act. So, while welcoming in the main the four new subsections in Amendment No. 12, there are those points which I should like the Minister to clarify and give the confirmation I have requested.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his reply to the long amendment which I moved, and I apologise that such a lengthy set of amendments are on the Marshalled List. However, as I explained, they were first of all in response to points put by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on Report, for which we are indeed grateful and, secondly, they are not intended in any way to change the policy which I have put to your Lordships' House at previous stages of the Bill.

As regards the first question, in short my answer to the noble Lord is "yes". My understanding of the noble Lord's question, which I am afraid I had to take down rather quickly, is: if, for example, consideration was being given about services to a particular industrial estate would it be possible for the PTA to decide such a matter as part of its general responsibilities for formulating policy? In other words, what about policies for specific areas? My advice is that that would be perfectly possible for the PTA.

The second question was about the transfer of staff. My answer is that it is for the PTA to recruit its own staff. There will not be the transfer that the noble Lord was asking about. I hope that clarifies the position for the noble Lord.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I also asked whether subsection (2) precludes the authority employing its own policy advisers to supplement those on the PTA. Is that possible?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I think the answer is that it would not be possible; but perhaps I should write to the noble Lord because it is important to get it right and the noble Lord will no doubt wish to send advice to others who are interested.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 55, line 12, leave out ("so to conduct themselves as not to inhibit") and insert ("not to take any measures which would interfere with the conditions of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been suggested that with this amendment we should take Amendments Nos. 14, 34, 35, 37 and 40. Amendment No. 14: Page 55, line 14, at end insert (", always provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the rights of the Authority or the Executive to negotiate with any one or more operators for the purposes of securing or promoting measures in fulfilment of subsection (5) above".). Amendment No. 34: Clause 63, page 66, line 17, leave out ("so to conduct themselves as not to inhibit") and insert ("not to take any measures which would interfere with the conditions of). Amendment No. 35 Page 66, line 19, at end insert (", always provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the right of any such council to negotiate with any one or more operators for the purposes of securing or promoting measures in fulfilment of subsection (7) above."). Amendment No. 37: Clause 80, page 86, line 8, leave out ("so conduct themselves as not to inhibit") and insert ("not take any measures which would interfere with the conditions of). Amendment No. 40: Clause 92, page 99, line 4, leave out ("so conduct themselves as not to inhibit") and insert ("not take any measures which would interfere with the conditions of).

We consider this to be a vitally important amendment and want to argue the case in considerable detail. There have been a number of debates on the duty of local authorities and PTEs not to inhibit competition and affect the powers of those authorities to promote the operation of services in conjunction with one another and for the convenience of the public. However, there has still not been a satisfactory answer to the problem that, as drafted, the duty not to inhibit competition is in such general terms as to dissuade local authorities and PTEs from making extensive use of the powers defined in new Clause 9A(5) and Clause 63(7).

My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey sought to define at Report stage precisely how competition law might be applied to local authorities and clarification of their duties under the subsections to which these amendments refer. Noble Lords may remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, strongly supported my noble friend. The noble and learned Lord has had to leave the House, but before doing so he specifically asked me to convey to the House his very strong defence of these amendments. As he put it, from a lawyer's point of view these amendments clarify the problem mentioned on Report by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. If he could be here the noble and learned Lord would certainly be supporting these amendments.

The duty not to inhibit competition is imposed in very simple terms and there are no restrictions upon it. Any operator or potential operator who felt that others had been placed in a more favourable position could pursue the matter through the civil courts. That would inevitably result in a disruption of services to the public and, in fact, could be abused. These amendments seek to overcome that probem, in part by making clear what authorities may or may not do.

Noble Lords may recall that when discussing this problem in Committee I gave an example of where a local authority promotes an interlinked bus and rail service between two points which could also be linked by direct bus services. I suggested that the operators of the direct bus service might complain that the local authority had inhibited competition by promoting the co-ordination agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, kindly undertook to consider this example and on 14th October he wrote to me to the effect that, in the Government's view, far from inhibiting competition the local authority could well be said to be stimulating it by encouraging a choice of services for the passengers. To me, that is a most perverse and difficult interpretation to accept; but if the Government are to be believed it demonstrates that there is considerable danger in the wording of the Bill as it stands.

Earlier in his letter the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says that he believes much misunderstanding has arisen about the duty not to inhibit competition because of a tendency to regard the word "inhibit" as being synonymous with "affect". Clearly the noble Lord is right to say that any action taken by one operator in a competitive market will necessarily affect other operators. What the reasonable man would regard as inhibition is if, by that action, the operator concerned is put into a position to which his competitors cannot reasonably respond.

Let us assume that in the railway example the Railways Board is only willing to enter into a coordination agreement with one operator. In that case competition has been inhibited. The local authority, having promoted the co-ordination agreement, has been the agent of that inhibition of competition, and it therefore appears to have violated Section 9A (6) while legitimately pursuing its powers under Section 9A (5). If the Minister means what he says in his letter to me, I believe that the Bill needs to be amended.

The way we have chosen to seek this clarification is to use the formula "not to take any measures which would interfere with the conditions of," rather than the words "so to conduct themselves as not to inhibit" which are in the Bill. In suggesting this phraseology, we infer that in terms of transport services the conditions of competition are related to price, frequency and quality. These are all matters which are under the control of the individual operator. Simply promoting co-ordination between operators would not infringe this definition, whereas the wording in the Bill has far wider connotations.

To make the matter even clearer, in Clauses 57 and 63 we add the qualification that local authorities shall have the right to negotiate with operators for the purposes of pursuing their powers of promoting the operation of services in conjunction with one another, and to promote the convenience of the travelling public. The case therefore becomes a simple one: as the Bill is drafted it is not sufficiently precise and needs amendment to make it clearer as to what the authorities may or may not do. I think it is purely a matter of interpretation. As I have said, the legal advice which I have been given most strongly is that these amendments would make the Government's intention clear. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I should like to support this amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and to offer a further illustration of the problems that could arise. Let us imagine the situation after the Bill has become an Act, and competition has become beneficial in a market town—which for the sake of argument, I was going to call Glossop, but if I go on talking about that town they will give me the freedom of Glossop, and though I should enjoy that it is rather a long way away, so let me say, my home town of Taunton. As a result of this beneficial competition there are a number of routes which are all operating commercially under three or four different operators. Then let us suppose that Somerset County Council wishes to ensure that the disabled can travel freely in the fair town of Taunton. It may decide that the demand for special facilities could be met economically by equipping just one or two buses to operate a cycle of routes on different days of the week.

The capital expenditure required to do this could not be justified commercially, and, wishing to use their available finance wisely, the county council desire the special facilities to be integrated as far as possible into the normal service network. This can sensibly be done by selecting the operator with the largest number of routes and paying him a grant under Section 106, which was introduced into the Bill at Report stage—we have no complaints about that as we were very pleased to see it—and as a result the operator is able to provide the necessary facilities for the disabled on his vehicles.

What would the other operators think about this? First, they would see the operator who is in receipt of the grant being put in a more favourable position than themselves. He will probably have more modern vehicles and therefore a larger market would be created for him; and if he operates on the routes of competitors accessible services for the disabled which are open to all users, he will also be in a more favourable position than they are. The other operators might conclude, with some justification, that competition has been inhibited.

The effect of this could be that lawyers who are acting for local authorities, seeing this possibility coming forward, might well conclude that paying the grant would inhibit competition, and therefore the grant would not be paid and the disabled would not get their services. This is clearly not what the Government intend. The local authorities clearly must retain the minimum right of negotiation with operators. This is really the point of Amendments Nos. 13 and 35.

This is not an easy matter, but it seems to us that it is an area where amendment is called for to clarify precisely what the Government intend. I see the possibility of actions appearing in the civil courts in the future unless this position is clarified. I hope this amendment will be acceptable, or, if not, that the Government will find some way of clarifying the position.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, we have of course debated on Report the provisions with which these amendments are concerned, though I think that that debate was in slightly different context. As the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Tordoff have explained, today's amendments are concerned with clarifying the meaning of the various provisions of the Bill which require local authorities so to conduct themselves that they do not inhibit competition. I assure your Lordships that there is nothing between us so far as trying to achieve clarity is concerned, but I find difficulty with these amendments. I think that they may accidentally have certain other effects.

I have listened naturally with great care to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, of what is meant by the conditions of competition, but I must say that I do not feel persuaded that this tells me necessarily all that follows from the simple words on the Marshalled List. May I explain what I mean? Like noble Lords opposite. I try, for instance, to imagine, maybe many years ahead, a county council which is trying to decide whether it has the power to follow a particular course of action—because I think that is the problem which is in our minds. It seems to me that introducing an undefined concept such as the conditions of competition will not really help the council very much at all. I am sure it could lead to more questions than those it already has to answer.

I also note that the amendment refers to "measures". This leads me to think that the amended duty would attach only to measures taken under the power conferred by subsection (5). It might allow the PTA policies to be outside the scope of the duty, which would not be acceptable to the Government. Two of the amendments would expressly allow local authorities, PTEs or PTAs to negotiate with individual operators in connection with their powers and duties to promote the public transport services. I think it is this which worries me most of all because it goes right to the policy of the Bill. It seems to me that any kind of negotiation with a single operator or with just a few operators, whatever the content or effect of such a negotiation, would be unaffected by the duty not to inhibit competition. With respect, that would be a clear nonsense in the context of this Bill.

I suggest that we must ensure that local authorities behave even-handedly in implementing these provisions. For example, they would allow local authorities to publish timetables for their areas and it would be quite wrong if they could publicise the services of one operator and not those of another. That is not to say that any negotiation with an operator would be outlawed by the duty not to inhibit competition. It would surely depend entirely on the circumstances. For example, it might be that only one operator was running a regular service in which a local authority had an interest—for example, in ensuring that a connection with a train was being made. In that case, surely the local authority could and would negotiate with only the one operator.

Each of the noble Lords raised a specific point. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned the effect of competition on Clause 106. I think I ought to say that the provisions which we are discussing now do not apply to Clause 106. That is not to say that the powers of local authorities to make grants are entirely without constraint. Clause 106 confers on authorities a discretion to make grants, and that discretion is fettered by such principles of administrative law as have been established in the courts. But that is an issue with which local authorities will already be familiar.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I was not directly attributing it to that clause. I was saying that there was an indirect effect on the competitive situation. That was the point of my illustration. Does the noble Lord follow me?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I think that I follow the noble Lord, but I do not think that I agree with him.

The noble Lord Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised the Railways Board issue, about which we have corresponded. I found it revealing that in order to pursue the argument, as I understand it, he has had to add a new factor, and that is that the Railways Board is willing to enter into a co-ordination agreement only with one operator. It is at that point that we enter entirely different territory, if what is being implied is that the Railways Board is picking and choosing with its own interests in mind and the local authority is meekly falling in with its demands. I am quite sure that we should not be seeking to tinker with the duties not to inhibit competition in order to find room for a circumstance of that kind.

Having said what I have said, may I say that the one thing on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, implied it but did not say it—is that this is extremely difficult territory and it would be desirable to clarify it? But with great respect, for the reasons that I have attempted to give, I am worried that these amendments would not clarify the position but would make things rather more difficult. Your Lordships may say, "That is all very well, but have the Government not even attempted to give guidance?". Your Lordships may care to glance, for instance, at the draft code of practice on tendering, which was published on, I think, 8th October, and copies of which I have sent to some noble Lords. It contains both a statement of broad principle and a list giving instances where a local authority might be likely to be in breach of its duty not to inhibit competition. We have endeavoured to give such guidance.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the Minister is correct. It is extremely difficult territory.

He takes his advice, I take mine and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, takes his. I have tried to grasp what the Minister said and fit it in with the information that I have, but it still appears to me that the matter is wide open to misinterpretation. As I suggested early on, the procedure may even be open to abuse by certain operators who might wish to bring civil actions frivolously.

Another reason why it is difficult to do anything about this is that we are at the last gasp and there is no opportunity. What the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and I are possibly looking forward to is clarification in a year or perhaps two years' time. On the advice I have I think there is a great deal of room for clarification. However, I realise the situation that we are in just now, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 15:

[Printed earlier: col. 1319.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 15):

Page 56, line 28, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(1)").

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 56, leave out line 36 and insert— ("Authority to be representative of such persons; and where the passenger transport area is in England and Wales the Authority shall also consult with the councils of the districts comprised in that area about the requirements for transport arising out of or in connection with the exercise and performance by those councils of their functions as local education authorities or of their social services functions.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, I hope, meets a point which was raised at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and which attracted support from all sides of your Lordships' House. It requires the PTAs in England and Wales to consult the metropolitan district councils so that the PTAs' general policies will be formulated in the light of the transport requirements which arise in relation to the education and social services responsibilities in the metropolitan districts.

In Scotland there is one PTA which is also a regional council. No requirement to consult the districts therefore arises, as the Strathclyde Regional Council will also be performing the education and social work functions within the passenger transport area.

If I may, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 21.

Amendment No. 19: Clause 58, page 58, Une 25, at end insert— ("(2A) In section 9B(1) of that Act, after the words "comprised in" there shall be inserted the words "the county which is coterminous with or includes".").

Amendment No. 21: page 58, line 37, leave out ("and (2)") and insert ("to (2A)").

These are consequential amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I again welcome the Government's acceptance of a general principle advanced by my noble friend Lord Carmichael on Report. However, we note that Amendment No. 16 reads: shall also consult with the councils of the districts", whereas what we want is for there to be active cooperation between the PTA and the district councils in formulating policies to deal with all passenger transport requirements arising from the exercise of the various transport duties and powers. I do not know what can be done at this stage, but it is possible for the other place to amend amendments made by this noble House. In other Acts we have used the words, "duty to co-operate". Will the Government consider not only that there should be consultation but that there should be a duty actively to co-operate? If it is not possible to insert the words in the Bill, will they emphasise that fact in communicating with the various organisations concerned?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, we shall certainly take into account what the noble Lord says, although I cannot say whether we will go beyond what we say on the face of the Bill. I undertook to write to the noble Lord if I was wrong on a previous point. I suspect that I may have been in error, and so I owe him a letter. Perhaps I may add something in writing on this point.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 17:

[Printed earlier: col. 1319.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question amendment agreed to. Following is the text of the amendment (No. 17): Page 56, line 44, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(3)").

Clause 58 [Local government reorganisation: transport functions]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 58, line 5, after ("section") insert (", with the exception of subsection (4),").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 20.

Amendment No. 20: Page 58, line 35, leave out ("and") and insert ("(4)").

These amendments make clear that from the enactment of this Bill the construction of references in the Local Government Act 1985 either to provisions of that Act or to the Act generally may take into account the prospective changes which will occur on 1st April 1986 under Clause 58 (1) to (3), so that, for example, it will be possible to make an order allowing the joint board to take preparatory steps, such as consulting on its intended general policies, before 1 st April. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 19:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to. Following is the text of the amendment (No. 19): Page 58, line 25, at end insert— ("(2A) In section 9B(1) of that Act, after the words "comprised in" there shall be inserted the words "the county which is coterminous with or includes".").

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No 20: [Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to. Following is the text of the amendment (No. 20): Page 58, line 35, leave out ("and") and insert ("(4)").

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 21: [Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to. Following is the text of the amendment (No. 21): Page 58, line 37, leave out ("and (2)") and insert ("to (2A)").

Clause 59 [Transfer of bus undertakings of Executives to companies owned by Authorities]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 58, line 42, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

("(a) activities of any description carried on by the Executive in or for the purposes of the provision of any service for the carriage of passengers by road currently provided by the Executive in exercise of any of their powers under section 10(1) of the 1968 Act; and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, at Report stage my noble friend Lord Teviot moved an amendment which reflected concern about the power of the initial companies to be formed by PTEs to operate services completely outside their own areas. My noble friend referred to such a service which the Greater Manchester PTE operates in the Glossop area and expressed concern about the reference in Clause 59(l)(a)to: a business of carrying passengers by road within, to and from", but not completely outside a PTE's area. We promised to give further thought to the point, and the present amendment represents the fruit of our deliberations. I beg to move.

6 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, once again, the name of the mighty town of Glossop comes up! One is grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for this amendment, which I hope will clarify the situation more on behalf of the Greater Manchester PTE than the people of Glossop. But it is welcome nonetheless.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for putting forward that very suitable amendment. Glossop was the place I mentioned, but I believe there are one or two other places in the area which also come into this. I am most grateful to the Government for having put forward this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 23:

Page 59, line 2, leave out from ("with") to end of line 3 and insert ("any activities within paragraph (a) above or to be capable of being conveniently carried on in association with any such activities.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House. I meant to speak to Amendment No. 23 with Amendment No. 22. It is all part of the same package. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 24:

Page 59, line 40, at end insert—

("(7A) The funding of liabilities retained by an Executive in consequence of the coming into force of a scheme shall be a purpose for which the Executive may borrow otherwise than by way of temporary loan and sums payable in respect of such borrowing shall be taken into account in the determination of the amount of revenue grants under section 4 of the Transport Act 1983.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to find a way of allowing those involved in the transfer of functions, the selling off and the setting up of the new bodies, the new companies, to be financed—not recompensed but enabled to raise the finance. We know that the areas of costs involved for the PTE are redundancy, surplus assets, pensions and the formation of the new companies, for which consultancy will also be required. All this was accepted on Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the Government.

The noble Lord also stated that the Government argued that these costs should not fall on central Government but should fall on the ratepayers, who would be expected to benefit from lower costs and better bus services as a result of the legislation. He went on to say that it is open to PTAs to apply for a resettlement of the limit proposed by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and that his right honourable friend would give full consideration, in the determination of any application, to any costs in relation to the PTE's transfer scheme which an authority had asked him to take into account; that is, at the end of the period they would be able to look at the figure and redetermine the amount that it would be possible to take into account for the PTE.

On being pressed further, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, repeated this view by saying that if any of the PTAs have a real difficulty in this area they can apply to his right honourable friend for a redetermination of their expenditure limit. The amendment tabled is totally different from that tabled at Report stage. There was some difficulty about this in the process of tabling the amendments. This amendment seeks to provide in the Bill for the solution put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. He recognises it is not a matter for central Government to finance but should fall on the local ratepayer.

The amendment also recognises that it is impossible to estimate at this stage the costs likely to be involved. These costs can really only be determined after the schemes have been prepared and the tendering process is complete. Therefore it is impossible to make a good enough case for redetermination in respect of this year's expenditure, and I think that was actually suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. The amendment allows the PTEs to know, and it obliges the passenger transport authority and the Secretary of State to recognise, the cost of this borrowing in respect of future expenditure limits. Therefore the amendment is a legitimate one to table at this very late stage, in view of all the discussions we have had before. It is a totally different amendment from the previous one.

With more time, this amendment could have been better drafted. It has all been rather hurried. But I hope the noble Earl the Minister will give it consideration and realise that the PTAs will be in a quite serious difficulty if they are landed with very large initial expenses—we discussed this more fully on Report—before they are able to reap any of the benefits which the noble Earl and the Government believe will naturally come to them if the Bill becomes law. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we have debated this very fully on previous stages of the Bill, and also the suggestion that the PTEs will be required to meet residual costs following the formation of the company. The Government have said very clearly that they have seen no evidence to suggest there will be significant costs of this nature. It is also said that any costs which do arise should appropriately be met by the executive. I do not think your Lordships will want me to go into these arguments again at this stage, because we have before us specific new amendments concerned with the way in which the executives and their authorities may meet any costs which arise. But like the noble Lord, I felt I must put this matter into context.

The noble Lord said he wants to ensure two things—that the executive may borrow if necessary, and that the authority will take account of sums payable in determining its revenue grant to the PTE. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne made clear at Report stage that in the Government's view authorities should take account of any residual cost which they believe their executive will have to meet when they consider their revenue grant for the year 1986–87. As was said when last we debated the matter, in the light of their estimates authorities should consider whether to apply for redetermination of the expenditure limit proposed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I repeat that now. We shall naturally take into account any estimates the authorities draw to our attention.

The Government remain of the view that this is the right way to deal with any costs which arise. However, I hope I can offer the noble Lord some reassurance when it comes to the matter of revenue grants paid to an executive by its authority. I have looked carefully at the legislation and I do not believe that the difficulty described by the noble Lord exists. Section 13(1) of the Transport Act 1968 makes clear that the PTA makes grants to the executives for any purpose. That would certainly allow a grant to cover any payments made from the executive's revenue account.

While I have disagreed with the noble Lord about borrowing, I hope I have been able to reassure him about the scope of the authority's grant; but there is a difference between us on what is likely to happen. For that reason, there is also a difference between us on the way in which the executives could best meet any costs which fell on them. I hope that the noble Lord, having considered what I have said, will be satisfied with my explanation.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am sorry to say that I am not really satisfied with the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I specifically spoke about the basic costs of redundancy: surplus assets, pensions, and the company formation, the initial cost. It is not that I was ungrateful for his statement on revenue support. The points I was making were really on the initial costs of setting up the companies. I said these are impossible to fully identify until after the schemes have been prepared. While the PTAs may be willing to make an estimate from what the PTEs tell them about the cost of bringing in the new scheme, it will not really be known until afterwards. Therefore in many cases there could be a great difference between estimates and eventual costs.

The reply is rather disappointing. It will, I believe, be seen as disappointing by the PTEs. I shall, however, look with care, as I am sure will those responsible within the PTEs, at the Minister's reply, to see if there is any way that they can reduce their liabilities, at least in the short term. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60 [Exclusion of public sector co-operation requirements and bus operating powers]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 25:

Page 60, line 43, leave out ("on a day specified in the order").

The noble Lord said: This is an amendment that we have discussed, although not quite in these words, previously. It is concerned with the problem of PTEs which, owing to competition and the bringing in of new assets by new-start companies, find that there is a considerable amount of spare capacity of buses. These are buses that the PTEs, because of the inhibitions through the leasing arrangements, would find difficult to sell. The amendment gives them power to hire out the buses. To some extent, we have discussed this matter previously. It has been pointed out that the age, the design and the whole history of the buses mean that they are perfect for the job that we assume they will peform. However, the buses that may very well be bought or hired by someone entering into this activity may be unsuitable. As stated both here and in another place, coaches may be used that would be unsuitable for many jobs.

If, especially in the initial stages, people were buying cheap coaches—I am talking in terms of £2,000 or £3,000 for a coach—it means that the PTEs would be left with expensive equipment but without the power to hire out the spare buses. Fairly modern buses, properly designed for stage carrying, would be rotting in garages and building up debts for the PTE or the new company. We do not think that this should be the case. We do not believe it right that these assets should be wasted and that the new company should start off with such debts around its neck.

I hope therefore that the Minister, having already heard at earlier stages the ideas that we are trying to put forward in the amendment, will give it sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, it seems to me that there is a simple principle involved here. As we read it, on the face of the Bill as currently drafted, Clause 60(5) appears only to allow the Secretary of State to make one order, the effect of which is to remove the executive's powers to carry passengers and to hire out vehicles. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, shakes his head. I hope that he will be able to give us some reassurance on this point. That would be helpful.

It is seen as important that the Secretary of State should have power at least to postpone the making of the order to hire out vehicles as passenger transport executives may be left with a considerable number following the transfer of assets to the company The reasons were explained, but the debate at Report stage became rather confused. If however we could focus on this one salient point, I hope either that the amendment can be accepted by the Government or that we can have some reassurance.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Teviot

My Lords the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has talked about not wanting to confuse the Government or making this a confusing amendment. That is right. However, this is an amendment that I introduced at Report stage and one that I hinted at in Committee. My noble friend Lord Caithness got probably the worst of reactions, and I was not as articulate as I might have been. The figures were disputed. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has mentioned the use of these vehicles. It was estimated that they could number between 1,000 and 3.000. I must return to the point because it is one that was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Caithness. There could indeed be this large number of vehicles involving a great deal of public money.

There is nothing sinister at all about the amendment. We are simply providing powers for the PTEs or the PTAs—I forget which, but whatever the authority is, it does not matter—to hire out these vehicles and put them into operation and so avoid having a lot of spare capacity hiding away and looking miserable.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael said, the amendment was first moved during the Report stage. I said at the time that we did not believe that there would be significant problems with surplus vehicles in the PTEs, and that there was therefore no need to provide for executives to retain their powers to hire out vehicles. I also said that I had reservations about the very idea of the executive maintaining its powers in this sphere while it was administering the tendering system. My noble friend Lord Teviot, however, explained at Report stage that the amendment was intended to ensure that the Secretary of State had the power to postpone the removal of executives' powers to hire out vehicles if the need arose.

I have looked closely at the Bill on this point. I can give a clear assurance that the Secretary of State's order-making powers in Clause 60(5) already allow him to specify two dates, one date on which the power to operate vehicles will be removed and another on which the power to hire out vehicles will cease. I hope that this clear assurance will be welcome to all noble Lords who are concerned on this point. The power to specify a later date for the removal of powers to hire out is already provided for. I am not saying that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will necessarily decide that it is appropriate to make use of the powers by making an order that allows the executives to hire out vehicles once their operating powers are removed.

We have still seen no evidence that there will be surplus vehicles, in particular those subject to leasing agreements. Nor are we convinced that if there were such vehicles it would be appropriate for the executives, once they are administering and tendering, to have them available to hire out for other operators. Nonetheless, I can give a clear undertaking that while PTEs are preparing their transfer schemes, we will consider any evidence that they present to show that they have surplus vehicles that could best be deployed in this way. Each case will be looked at on its merits. I hope that with that very clear undertaking, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will agree that this amendment is no longer necessary.

Earl De La Warr

My Lords, I nearly gasped when I heard the words "very clear" from my noble friend. I thought that he went into the most extraordinary attempts at obfuscation in his answer. He gave what to me was a highly political, departmental-type, cautious reply about someting that, in commercial terms, is absolutely obvious. There will almost certainly be spare buses available—the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made this point very clearly—to those would-be operators who will be short of capital but will need to acquire good buses for their use in order to run their new businesses.

Where better can one go than to one of the large bus operators who does not want his buses, particularly if one is short of capital, in order to acquire good buses that are fit for the job? Anybody who knows anything about the bus business knows that good maintenance is almost an obsession with bus operators. I have heard it said before that if anything, many bus operators spend too much on maintenance. But this is absolutely clear. If the Government want to get new operators off to a good start they should allow them to go to the best market in order to get the most suitable vehicles and encourage that market to provide them. This is departmental bumbledom to try to get away from a straight commercial proposition such as this is. Spare buses should go out to the people who want them, thus satisfying one of the basic tenets of the free market.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must apologise if I did not make myself clear. It shows how much we missed my noble friend at Report stage. He will find out everything if he reads Hansard for 16th October, cols. 616 to 621.

Earl De La Warr

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I cannot accept that. I would not have risen if I had not read the matter with extreme care. My noble friend should know better.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am always amused that he is convinced—and he has said this several times—that we shall not have any spare buses. Between all the spare buses we are not going to have, and all these coaches we are going to have on the roads, they will be very crowded. I am slightly helped by the fact that he said there are already powers in certain circumstances for the Secretary of State to allow the hiring of these vehicles. I thought that the Government might have given a little more than that. However, since this is as much as we shall get now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 not moved.]

Clause 62 [Protection of employee benefits on transfer and division of bus undertakings]:

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 64, line 39, at end insert—

("( ) The powers conferred by this section shall be so exercised as to secure that the pension rights of a person who is employed in any undertaking or part of an undertaking transferred to a company as mentioned in subsection (2) or (3) above shall be not less favourable than those enjoyed by him immediately before the first transfer date or, as the case may be, the second transfer date.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come back again to the question of superannuation. Your Lordships will remember that at Report stage I sought to amend the Bill in order to give the right of choice to the individuals whose pensions were at stake. Again, to remind your Lordships, the present situation is that the Government have indicated that there will be a choice between employees staying within the local government superannuation scheme or moving to an entirely new pension scheme, but that the decision for that would rest with the employers and not with the employees; though I have no doubt that consultations would take place with trade unions and so on. That is where the decision rests.

There would be no problem from the point of view of the employees if they were to remain in the local government superannuation scheme. Their situation would not change. They would be no worse off than they had anticipated in the long term. In other words, they would be enjoying precisely the same terms as at the moment. The problem comes if the employers choose the second course—that is, to adopt a new pension scheme—and if, for any reason the scheme was not as good as that of local government. People look upon pensions as deferred salaries, deferred income. They plan their future accordingly. There are various facets to matters of this kind, not entirely involved with a specific amount of money at the end of the day.

This amendment seeks to impose an obligation on the PTE and on the company to ensure that any new scheme is no less favourable than the local government scheme. This still leaves the option for the PTE and the company of either leaving the transferred employees within the local government scheme or establishing their own scheme, provided that this is no less favourable. The amendment seeks to protect the rights and position of the individual, which has been done almost without exception in previous legislation where there has been denationalisation or privatisation.

So far as I can ascertain, successive Governments have always been prepared to protect the pension right of the employees when promoting legislation which could affect it. The Government's present proposals do not do this. As I say, this is a general power which I seek to put into the Bill to cover this very important area where there is still considerable concern.

Your Lordships will have seen that the trade unions are still very upset about this, though I must say that I deplore the suggestions that there should be a general strike, or a strike across the whole country. It seems to me that it would have been better if some of the trade unions had approached noble Lords who were seeking to promote the interests of their members in this place rather than let their voice be heard through the public print threatening strikes. Nevertheless, I believe that your Lordships' House has an obligation to try to persuade the Government, even at this late stage, to accept this general moral position in relation to the pensions of existing employees. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I fully support what the noble Lord has said in putting forward his amendment. Noble Lords who were present during the Report stage will have heard all the arguments, commercial and otherwise, that were put forward. Those noble Lords who were not present will have read the Official Report. Therefore we need not go into those arguments again. Noble Lords will have realised at the end of our last debate on this matter the indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, at the attitude adopted by some noble Lords on this issue.

It is on the human aspect mainly that I wish to speak at this stage. It is not the fault of the employees that they may be put into this situation; it will be because Parliament has passed certain legislation. From a humane attitude, we ought therefore to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. This is not a matter that we can leave, as has been suggested, for the directors of a PTC to determine. Persons who are transferred may possibly wish to keep their present pension rights but will not be able to do so because of the legislation the House is passing. This House ought to determine that they should not be in a worse position.

I should like to ask every noble Lord to put himself in the position of a member who will be in this situation and to ask what his attitude would be. His attitude would be to put up his hand in support of an amendment of this kind. On those grounds, I believe that we ought to support the amendment and give it full approval.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Murray of Epping Forest

My Lords, I wish to add my voice to those of your Lordships who have spoken to this amendment. This is not merely a matter of humanity, though it is that. It is a matter of equity, of morality, of reasonable expectations on the part of thousands of people who believed, and believe, that they had accrued an entitlement to something which was theirs of right.

I too deprecate proposals that industrial action should be taken on matters of this kind. However, I cannot help but understand why the people are so worried, so anxious and so concerned. I can understand why they should consider taking that action: in order to bring to the attention of the public and the Government their genuine sense of grievance. If nothing is done to redress their sense of injustice, I hope that we shall not hear complaints from the Government Benches, or from such quarters, at any action that these people might take to demonstrate their anxiety at being robbed of something which they believe is their right.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I hesitate to enter into a discussion with such distinguished noble Lords. who know much more than I about this subject. We have left it to those noble Lords who have financial interests to deal with the matter of pensions; but at this late stage I feel that I must comment. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, presented the argument fairly and fully, as did the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I thought that it would be better to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, before speaking.

I rise to speak because I want to put forward a new angle in relation to pensions. It might be construed as being a slight criticism of previous actions of the trade unions. I do not know much about PTEs—and we are discussing the PTEs and the other busmen—but when I worked on the buses, which was between 1961 and 1967, the increases were either 6 shillings and 6 pence or 10 shillings, or whatever. However, I could never understand why pensions were not dealt with That was a time when people left the industry to do other things. And it was a time of full employment. Wives used to influence their husbands not to work on the buses because of the unsocial hours; but underlying that was the question of there being no pension scheme.

Now the bus industry has a pension scheme. I hope that this pension situation will be dealt with to the satisfaction of all concerned. I shall keep an open mind until I hear what my noble friend on the Government Front Bench says. There is, I think, an argument that some pension agreements have only recently been formulated. Pensions are vitally important. One wants people who work in the service industry to continue to work in the service industry, and we want to see a situation of full employment again. I believe that that is a definite possibility. This is a vitally important amendment and I support it.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies on behalf of the Government, perhaps I may introduce another angle to the story. I do not know how many of your Lordships were personally involved in the whole sad, sorry story of the changes that were made to transport undertakings in this country. However, I was involved right from the very beginning when the first PTEs were formulated by a Labour Government, to which I was of course very sympathetic. Then we had the Tory Government messing about with local government, followed by a Labour Government making other changes. Slowly, over a period of a quarter of a century, we have now arrived at this situation. Of course there were disputes between one and the other as to how it should be done, but one theme ran through all the organisations. It was a principle to which I gave my personal support.

The whole of the Conservative group on the Merseyside County Council, the Liverpool City Council, all the district councils on Merseyside. the members of the Conservative Party in Government and the members of the Labour Party in Government gave their solid support to that principle. It was that whenever a change was instituted by Government, nothing would be done to weaken or allow the long-term interests of the employees, who had no say in the matter, to deteriorate.

We are now in a situation where that can happen, and the amendment seeks merely to ensure that it should not happen. If it happens, not only will it be a callous disregard of employees' interests, but it will be a callous disregard of all the pledges and promises made by all the politicians involved in transport over 25 years.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, we ought to be clear what it is that we are talking about and what it is that we are not talking about in relation to this amendment. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to be critical of the jeopardy into which, the noble Lord asserts, pension entitlements accrued before transfer to companies in the local government scheme would be put. I think that I ought to quote from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who replied to a very similar amendment on 16th October. At col. 626 of Hansard my noble friend said: My Lords, I shall try to help your Lordships. It is, of course, the case that the benefits which employees under existing arrangements will have accrued for themselves under the existing local government scheme will remain. Those arrangements will be enshrined and employees will have this particular option to decide for themselves whether their accrued benefits should remain in the local government scheme or, if they prefer, be transferred to whatever new scheme is devised by the company. That specific right will exist for individual employees.". Therefore, I am simply repeating what my noble friend is saying, that past pension entitlements which accrued before transfer to companies in the local government superannuation scheme can be preserved in the scheme whatever arrangements are made for the future.

However, I realise that the effect of this amendment is to ensure that the future pension arrangements made by new companies should at least be equivalent to the present ones. I cannot agree that companies should be constrained in this way. This amendment is really saying that, unlike all the employers with whom it will be competing, the public transport companies will not be free to negotiate with their staff over pensions, just as they can over other terms and conditions of service.

I really do not think that that would be an acceptable state of affairs. It is after all an important part of this policy that the public transport companies should all have proper flexibility in how they arrange their affairs. In saying that, I am not for one moment suggesting that the companies will in any way be irresponsible employers. Indeed, I am absolutely certain that they will do their very best for their staff, and it is the Government's belief that they will be doing the best for the staff in a very much better financial climate for the bus industry than has been the case before. But it seems to be a point of principle that they should be able to negotiate all such matters with their staff without having impositions made from outside.

I know of course—because we have discussed this issue before—that staff are presently members of the local government superannuation scheme. It follows from what I have said today, and from what my noble friend has said on previous occasions, that we shall not require companies to keep their employees in that scheme. However, your Lordships will know very well—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was good enough to say it—that the Government will make it possible for the staff to be kept in their present scheme, if the company and the PTE so decide.

On behalf of the Government, I remain of the view that it is right for the Government to make this option available. However, I am also clear that it should be for local decision. It must be remembered that staff will be able to keep an index-linked preserved benefit—representing their past accrued entitlement—in the local government superannuation scheme, as I ventured to say at the beginning of my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I think that this only reflects that a proper degree of flexibility is available. I am sorry, but on those grounds I do not agree with the amendment which the noble Lord has moved, which applies of course to future pension entitlements and not to those of the past.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am not a pensions expert and therefore I do not propose to argue on the question of the merits of accrued benefits being transferred. However, I have sufficient knowledge to know that it is not always to the benefit of employees to transfer accrued benefits. It varies very much from individual to individual. At the back of this amendment rests a very simple principle. It is a principle which has been exemplified in many of the speeches, and I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is the principle that Parliament should not, by an Act of privatisation, put employees in a worse position than they are at the moment in relation to their pension funds. That, simply, is what the amendment is about, and I have no alternative but to divide the House on this matter.

6.40 p.m.

On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 76.

DIVISION NO.2
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Jacques, L.
Amherst, E.	John-Mackie, L.
Ardwick, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Aylestone, L.	Kilmarnock, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Lawrence, L.
Bernstein, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Bottomley, L.	Lockwood, B.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mais, L.
Collison, L.	Mayhew, L.
Crawshaw of Aintree, L.	Mellish, L.
David, B.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Denington, B.	Mountevans, L.
Diamond, L.	Mulley, L.
Donoughue, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Falkender, B.	Nicol, B.
Falkland, V.	Ogmore, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Oram, L.
Fitt, L.	Parry, L.
Gallacher, L.	Phillips, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]
Grey, E.
Hampton, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Rochester, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Russell of Liverpool, L.	Teviot, L.
Seear, B.	TordofF, L. [Teller.]
Sefton of Garston, L.	Underhill, L.
Shaughnessy, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Silkin of Dulwich, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Somers, L.	Whaddon, L.
Stallard, L.	White, B.
Stedman, B.	Wilson of Langside, L.
Stewart of Fulham, L.	Young of Dartington, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Kitchener, E.
Beaverbrook, L.	Lane-Fox, B.
Beloff, L.	Long, V. [Teller.]
Belstead, L.	McFadzean, L.
Bessborough, E.	Margadale, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Marley, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Brookes, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Merrivale, L.
Broxbourne, L.	Mottistone, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Butterworth, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Caithness, E.	Napier and Ettrick, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Orkney, E.
Carnock, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Coleraine, L.	Pender, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Davidson, V.	Reay, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Renton, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Renwick, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Elton, L.	Savile, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Gisborough, L.	Strathspey, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Swansea, L.
Greenway, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Hailsham of Saint	Trefgarne, L.
Marylebone, L.	Trumpington, B.
Harvington, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Henley, L.	Vickers, B.
Hives, L.	Vivian, L.
Holderness, L.	Ward of Witley, V.
Hood, V.	Whitelaw, V.
Hooper, B. [Teller.]	Wise, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Wolfson, L.
Killearn, L.	Young, B.
Kimball, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.47 p.m.

Clause 63 [Functions of local councils with respect to passenger transport in areas other than passenger transport areas]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 30:

[Printed earlier: col. 1319.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 30 with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 30):

Page 65, line 7, after ("county") insert ("which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose;").

Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33:

[Printed earlier: col. 1319.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 were all spoken to with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 31, 32 and 33):

Page 65, line 17, after ("area") insert ("which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose;").

Page 65, line 21, leave out subsection (3).

Page 65, line 33, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—

("(5) A non-metropolitan district council in England and Wales shall have power to secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as they consider it appropriate to secure to meet any public transport requirements within their area which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose. (6) For the purpose of securing the provision of any service under subsection (l)(a) or (2)(a) or (as the case may be) under subsection (5) above any council shall have power to enter into an agreement providing for service subsidies; but their power to do so—

1. (a) shall be exercisable only where the service in question would not be provided without subsidy; and
2. (b) is subject to sections 89 to 92 of this Act.").

[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 36:

[Printed earlier: col. 1320.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is consequential on Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No 36):

Page 68, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("cases where the service in question would not be provided without subsidy").

Clause 80 [Duty of Passenger Transport Authority not to inhibit competition]:

[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

Clause 91 [Exceptions from section 89]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 97, line 41, leave out ("or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 39.

Amendment No. 39: Page 97, line 43, at end insert ("or (c) securing the provision of a service to meet any public transport requirement which has arisen unexpectedly and ought in the opinion of the authority to be met without delay;").

These amendments are in response to an undertaking that I gave to my noble friend Lord Teviot at the Report stage. My noble friend made a most convincing case then for an extension of Clause 91 to cover the need for authorities to act quickly to secure some quite new service if a need suddenly arose. I promised to look into this.

This amendment will allow authorities to enter into such emergency subsidy agreements to meet any public transport needs which arise unexpectedly. It gives added flexibility for authorities to take prompt action without having to wait for results of a tender process. Of course authorities will, as now, be required to invite tenders as soon as possible afterwards. Once again I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Teviot for initiating this improvement to the Bill, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who took part in the debate at Report stage. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is unable to be here at the moment. On behalf of all those who took part in that debate may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for having listened to what was said and for recognising that there could be occasions where this provision might be necessary. We are most grateful.

Earl De La Warr

My Lords, if it is not out of order may I, on my noble friend's behalf, thank the Government for their courtesy.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 39:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]

Clause 93 [Travel concession schemes]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved amendment No. 41:

Page 101, line 3, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be helpful if, with the leave of the House, I could also speak to Amendment No. 42. Amendment No. 42: Page 101, line 7, at end insert— ("; and (f) such other classes of persons as the Secretary of State may by order specify.").

This is a rather important group of amendments. The purpose is to give the Minister the power to include by order any categories he wishes in the concessionary fares scheme. The Bill as drawn is very tight and in Clause 93(7) are listed those who can be included in a concessionary fares scheme.

At the Report stage a number of people said that the mentally handicapped and the deaf and dumb were specifically excluded by the provisions of the Bill. Because they are not included it is therefore not possible to put them back on the face of the Bill. The problem is a practical administrative point. If it is not on the face of the Bill the mentally handicapped, the deaf and the dumb can be given concessionary fares or some sort of help with transport only with the help of the social service departments which would decide whether or not, as a group, they should be included, provided that they can be added to the scheme.

At Report we tried, but we were unable to make it clear and to convince the Government that Clause 93(7) provides for compulsory participation in travel concession schemes and that these two categories I have mentioned cannot be included. The clause can only be invoked for classes set out in Clause 93(7). They can have concessions only when an operator voluntarily agrees. This means that there will need to be separate reimbursement for each operator, no matter whether or not he is only operating one service. There would still need to be separate arrangements made for each operator for reimbursement, if he were willing to undertake the job. I could hardly imagine, given the option, that small single operators would be willing voluntarily to accept the concessionary fares scheme.

By comparison with the elderly, the number of people in the mentally handicapped and deaf and dumb category is so small that I doubt whether an operator would accept it. However, operators might be happy to include these classes of people in a wider scheme, but only if the scheme was wide enough. They would not be keen to treat them in a separate scheme set up only for the purpose of including the deaf and dumb and the mentally handicapped. When we spoke earlier we said that the real importance of this is that the people who are deaf, dumb and mentally handicapped have great problems and there is also the embarrassment they have when they get on a bus, in approaching a driver or conductor to try to make it known where they are going and how they are likely to travel.

For these reasons we believe that the power should be given to the Secretary of State to add a subsection to Clause 93(7) to allow him to specify any general category that he wishes to specify. I hope that, having listened to the debate last time, and understanding the sympathy this matter has in the House, the Government will feel able to accept these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, as your Lordships will know, the Government, and indeed governments before, have always taken the view that it was appropriate for concessions for people in the groups about whom the noble Lord has been talking, namely, the mentally handicapped and those who are deaf and dumb and others, to continue to be provided by the social services authorities who have the necessary powers with concessionary fares. However, it become clear during the course of the debate at the previous stage that there are cases where the division of responsibility between authorities could give rise to problems. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, wrote me a long letter about this, and I should like to thank the noble Lord for sending it to me.

I understand that in Greater Manchester support for people in these groups is being provided, not by the district councils—although it is they who have the necessary powers as social services authorities—but the PTE. For this reason more than for any other I have therefore decided on behalf of my right honourable friend that it would be right for us to consider how far it would be appropriate for the transport authorities to provide concessions under Clause 93(7) for handicapped or disabled people in groups other than those to be found on the face of the Bill. I feel that this would clear up this area of administrative confusion, and accordingly I say to your Lordships that the Government accept the noble Lord's amendment.

I should add that my right honourable friend will consider, in consultation with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, how best the order-making power conferred can be used to extend the coverage of schemes to rationalise the situation. It is only right that any decision should be taken jointly by both my right honourable friends.

I think perhaps I owe the noble Lord an apology for rather jumping the gun at the Report stage and negativing the amendment which we were debating—for it was I who did it. I was mistaken. The noble lord was quite right to write to me, and I am very glad to be able to repair the matter by accepting the amendment.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman who has put her name to this amendment, and all of us who have pitched in on this debate as it has gone through the various Sittings, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for the acceptance and for the generous way in which he treated his slight aberration on the last occasion. It is extremely welcome and gives a degree of flexibility which cannot be abused, for the power still rests with the Secretary of State, but it opens up the possibilities for people who are desperately in need of support.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, it is only right that I sincerely thank the Minister for his acceptance of this amendment. Not only does it open up this matter, but it makes it much tidier. We are glad that the Minister took heed of the last debate. I thank him for accepting these amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 42:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 116 [Use of bus stations: monopolies, anticompetitive practices and restrictive practices]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 121. line 35, leave out ("made") and insert ("coming into force").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment to the drafting of Clause 116 (3). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7 p.m.

Clause 125 [The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 44:

Page 131, line 32, at end insert—

(" (6A) The Secretary of State shall from time to time issue guidance as to measures that may be taken with a view to—

1. (a) making access to vehicles used in the provision of public passenger transport services by road easier for disabled persons; and
2. (b) making such vehicles better adapted to the needs of disabled persons.

(6B) The Secretary of State shall consult the Committee before issuing any such guidance.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed this matter at Report last week I undertook to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that we would consider putting a code of practice on the face of the Bill. This was on an amendment moved by the noble Lord coupled with the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).

As a consequence of that, and of consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, this amendment requires my right honourable friend to issue guidance from time to time as to the measures which may be taken to provide easier access for disabled people on vehicles used in the provision of public passenger transport services by road, and to make those vehicles better adapted to the needs of disabled people. I stressed in the earlier debate that it was our belief that the new Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee would have a crucial role to play in the preparation of such guidance, and the amendment does therefore make specific provision for my right honourable friend to issue his guidance after consultation with them. Partly in view of this close link between the two—and partly, also, if I am to be honest, because of the general objection to the addition of further new clauses at this late stage in the Bill's progress—our amendment takes the form of an addition to the existing Clause 125, which establishes the new committee, rather than a separate new clause.

There are other details of this, into which I could go, but the hour is late and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will wish to say a word or two on both (I hope) the advantages and other aspects of the amendment. Also my friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who made a very interesting speech on this amendment at the previous stage, may wish to intervene. Therefore, without more ado, I beg to move.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, Say not the struggle naught availeth". It does, in this particular case, due to the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I am truly grateful to both of them for having listened to the arguments on Report and for having taken the matter to the Secretary of State and come back with this very satisfactory result. It means that now it has been officially accepted that there is a strong case for the provision of a statutory guidance (I do not think it matters whether or not it is called a code) from central Government, from the Secretary of State, so that public service vehicles, in this case road vehicles, shall be made easier of access for the disabled and that there shall be better adaptation of those vehicles.

I am slightly puzzled that this is only in respect of disabled people and not also in respect of elderly people, because elsewhere we have used the term, "elderly and disabled", or "elderly or disabled". If that is merely a matter of drafting, perhaps it could be put right before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Of course I am very pleased that, though the exigencies of drafting at this late stage make it impossible to have a separate clause, the ingenious solution has been found of putting this statutory guidance in the same clause as the clause for the statutory advisory committee. This is especially suitable because the guidance can be issued by the Secretary of State only after consulting that committee. Thus it is well placed. I believe there is to be a consequential addition to the side note to indicate that the guidance is the matter of this clause, as well as the consultative committee.

I should like to take this opportunity to say that not just I but my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, who both would very much like to be here but cannot be, offer their thanks to the Minister. I think all disabled people will come to value this addition and will be duly grateful.

I hope that the Ministers do not think that I am any less grateful if, merely for the record, I very briefly mention the extent to which the Government amendment does not go quite so far as I should have wished. I think I should have preferred to have some kind of wording in regard to the advisory committee similar to that adopted in the Government's own Amendment No. 12, where the authorities have to, seek and have regard to the advice of the Executive". That is rather stronger wording than the wording of this clause. The Secretary of State of course is bound to put the guidance before the advisory committee, but he is under no compulsion to have regard to it. Of course he will. However, I should have preferred a stronger wording, but at this late stage I cannot insist on it.

I should have liked there to be some urgency put into the guidance, that it should be issued not later than at the end of the transitional period, which is specified in Schedule 6. We talked about that on Report. This is an urgent matter. I know that it is not entirely interim but there is this unfortunate lag between the issue of Construction and Use Regulations and the actual adaptation in new vehicles. Meanwhile, the code issuing from the Secretary of State will be immensely valuable. Thus, the sooner it is issued, the better. I wonder whether some undertaking to that effect can be made.

I should have liked it to provide for printing and distribution. I should have liked it to say that the local authorities, whatever they may be called, have some kind of responsibility for the promotion of the code. In that way, it would get to operators. There is no compulsion on anyone to promote this code which the Secretary of State is issuing. No doubt the Secretary of State will see that it is properly printed and promulgated. Having received so much from the Ministers, I cannot cavil, so I must end on a note of thanks and not of carping or niggling.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, perhaps I too may thank my noble friend Lord Belstead, who always seems to keep an open mind to a fair and reasonable way of improving any Bill, not only this one. Here, we have a supreme example of his flexibility on a very important matter which arose late in the Bill, on Report last week, as a result of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Then, the proposal was that there should be a code of practice; that was the drift of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I spoke against this and I also spoke against the Bill. My noble friend, without commitment, undertook to take this back for objective consideration. I can only congratulate him on what he has produced, which is, on consideration, wholly adequate to meet the problem and to plug the gap in the legislation.

In the amendment which he introduces, he is right to distinguish between codes of practice issued by a Minister, which ought to have legal efficacy, and mere guidance from the Secretary of State, which has no legal efficacy. I accept that it is no doubt preferable to seek to adopt the voluntary system initially, to see how it works, before introducing measures which have legal efficacy. I take this point as an argument against the view which I was advocating on Report.

The form of the amendment follows the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, but with the qualification which the noble Lord has just introduced. There is, as the noble Lord has said, a deficiency in the drafting which could be put right, to include the aged. I am aged, but I am not disabled—yet. There is therefore a deficiency in the drafting which requires attention. I know that my noble friend will attend to this. I do not seek an undertaking; I know that he will.

The other matter is that I think the House would like to know, if my noble friend the Minister is in a position to tell us, is how this guidance will be given—in what form. But before concluding I should like to congratulate the parliamentary draftsman, not only upon the speed of his reaction to the situation but on his inventive ingenuity in introducing the spirit of our discussions at Report stage into the Bill without a new clause and without the cost of altering the sequential numbering. It was in fact a tour de force in the exercise of that arcane art. I thank my noble friend and the draftsman.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, if I may reply to noble Lords who have spoken, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. This was not exactly as the noble Lord would have wished. Apart from anything else, I know that the noble Lord would have liked it to have been in a separate clause; but I endeavoured to explain what were my problems there, and the noble Lord has been most magnanimous.

The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked me about the timing of the issuing of guidance. On that, I would say that guidance when issued should be the right guidance, and it will certainly have to be developed in consultation with the new advisory committee. I ventured to say on Report that I thought it would be discourteous to the new advisory committee to impose a deadline on them before they had even been established. The amendment does not therefore include a specific provision as to the timing of guidance; but in reply to Lord Henderson's wish for an undertaking I would say that it is our hope that it will be possible to issue guidance well before the end of the transitional period.

The noble Lord was good enough to mention that the issue of guidance is mandatory; it is not permissive. The amendment which I am moving before your Lordships says that the Secretary of State "shall" from time to time issue guidance. I hope that it will be thought that this is definitely a move forward.

My noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, both referred to the omission of the elderly. May I say two things on that? The first is that the elderly are omitted because this is attached to Clause 125, which deals with the disabled persons' transport advisory committee. Indeed, we shall be ensuring, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has said, I think, in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that the sidenote will include a reference to guidance, showing that this is the clause which deals not only with the advisory committee but with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for guidance to be on the face of the Bill. That is the first thing.

The second is that one of the advantages of bringing forward an amendment of this kind is that my right honourable friend is under an obligation to issue guidance so far as transport by road for the elderly is concerned, but, of course, it does not prevent my right honourable friend from issuing other guidance on the elderly. It means, I admit, that the word "elderly" is not on the face of the Bill. It will not mean that guidance will not be issued so far as the needs of the elderly are concerned, I am quite certain, as well as the needs of the disabled.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Amendments consequential on the abolition of road service licensing]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 45:

Page 144, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("to"), in line 24, and insert—

("3.—(1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Energy Act 1976 (relaxation of road traffic and transport law) shall be amended as follows. (2) In sub-paragraph (1), for the words from "any", where it first occurs,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and with the leave of the House I would also speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 85.

Amendment No. 46: Page 144, line 27, leave out ("and") and insert—

("(3) In sub-paragraph (1),").

Amendment No. 47: Page 144, line 32, at end insert— ("(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) the words "or Part HI" shall be omitted and after "1981 " there shall be inserted the words "or Part I or II of the Transport Act 1985". (5) In sub-paragraph (2), the words "section 60 of, and the words from "general" to first "vehicles", shall be omitted and after "1981" there shall be inserted "or Part I of the Transport Act 1985".").

Amendment No. 85: In Schedule 8, page 187, line 41, at end insert—

"1976 c. 76.

The Energy Act 1976.

In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1(1)(c) the words "or Part III" and "and", paragraph 1(1)(d) and in paragraph 1 (2) the words "section 60 of" and the words from "general" to first "vehicles".").

These are purely consequential amendments to Schedule 1 to the Energy Act 1976, which allows certain relaxations in road transport laws to those duly authorised in an energy crisis. The amendments are rather complicated, but their effect is simply to reflect the changes made to transport law by Parts I and II of this Bill. The amendment of paragraph 3 dealt with the most important points, but it did not go far enough. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 46 to 48:

[Printed above (Nos. 46 and 47).]

[Printed earlier: col. 1320 (No. 48.)]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 46 to 48):

Page 144, line 27, leave out ("and") and insert—

("(3) In sub-paragraph (1),").

Page 144, line 32, at end insert—

("(4) In sub-paragraph (l)(c) the words "or Part III" shall be omitted and after "1981" there shall be inserted the words "or Part I or II of the Transport Act 1985". (5) In sub-paragraph (2), the words "section 60 of, and the words from "general" to first "vehicles", shall be omitted and after "1981" there shall be inserted "or Part I of the Transport Act 1985"."). Schedule 3, page 155, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert— ("(a) subsection (l)(a) shall be omitted;").

Schedule 3 [Amendments consequential on section 57]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 49:

[Printed earlier: col. 1320.]

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 49):

Page 156, line 2, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("3)").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 158, line 15, after ("1") insert ("(a) to (d) and (f)").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 51:

[Printed earlier: col. 1320.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 51):

Page 158, line 43, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(3)").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 158, line 44, leave out paragraph 32.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is also technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

Schedule 4 [Constitution, powers and proceedings of the Transport Tribunal]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 54:

Page 161, line 11, after ("power") insert ("(a)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and with the leave of the House to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 55 and 56.

Amendment No. 55: Page 161, line 11, at end insert— ("; or (b) to remit the matter to the traffic commissioner for rehearing and determination by him in any case where they consider it appropriate;").

Amendment No. 56: Page 161, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

We must thank the Council on Tribunals for drawing to our attention the potentially undesirable limitation in paragraph 9(3) of this schedule on the power of a transport tribunal to remit appeals to the traffic commissioner for rehearing and determination by him. The paragraph limited this power to cases where evidence has not been properly presented. The council pointed out that other tribunals—for instance, the Employment Appeals Tribunal—have an unfettered power to remit and that there could be cases, for instance where there have been procedural problems, where to remit was the sensible course but could not be allowed by the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 55 and 56:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Transitional provisions and savings]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 57:

Page 164, line 6, leave out ("27th September") and insert ("25th October").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 57 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66 and 67.

Amendment No. 58: Page 166, line 30, leave out ("17th August") and insert (" 14th September").

Amendment No. 59: Page 166, line 40, leave out ("16th August") and insert (" 13th September").

Amendment No. 60: Page 167, line 6, leave out ("27th September") and insert ("25th October").

Amendment No. 61: Page 168, line 9, leave out ("30th June") and insert ("31st July").

Amendment No. 62: Page 168, line 29, leave out ("27th September") and insert ("25th October").

Amendment No. 65: Page 170, line 16, leave out ("27th September") and insert ("25th October").

Amendment No. 66: Page 172, line 37, leave out ("27th September") and insert ("25th October").

Amendment No. 67: Page 173, line 18, leave out ("28th September") and insert ("26th October").

The effect of these amendments will be to move the end of the transitional period, and consequently deregulation day, from 28th September, 1986, to 26th October, 1986. The start of the transitional period and the date by which registrations under Case A must be received by the traffic commissioner remain unchanged. The periods during which registrations can be made under Cases B, C and D are extended by one month, as are the periods during which variations and cancellations of registrations can be made under cases 2 and 3.

In essence, therefore, the amendments extend by one month the period which local authorities and passenger transport executives will have to carry out competitive tendering and the letting of contracts for non-commercial services, and they fulfil an undertaking which I gave to your Lordships at Report stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, the remaining amendments—

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, if I may, I just want to take the opportunity to thank the Government for taking this step. It was an undertaking given at Report stage, and I think it would be wrong to let the occasion go without giving some thanks to the Government for honouring the undertaking. We are grateful.

Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 58 to 62:

[Printed above.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were combined with Amendment No. 57. With the leave of the House, I will move them together.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 63:

Page 169, line 7, after ("so") insert ("subject to sub-paragraph (5) below").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which was in the the name of noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, at Report stage, and because he cannot be here I am moving it now. The only reason I am moving it at this late stage is that I feel it should be aired and that the Government must have an answer. I appreciate, of course, that I presented it only yesterday. I feel that the answer must be ready, so I will read chapter and verse.

The transitional arrangements in Schedule 6 leading up to deregulation are complex and paragraph 7 proposes four ways whereby operators will be able to register particulars of services to be run immediately after deregulation. My noble friend advises me to get on with it, and I shall do so. Some people are terribly good at paraphrasing, but they usually miss very good points that have been earnestly written. It may take more than two or three minutes. Perhaps I may pick up my brief from where I left it. Immediately after deregulation would be from 28th September 1986 (cases A, B, C and D). This date and some other dates may have been put back by the Government's own amendments.

Three ways are also provided in paragraph 8 whereby a registration made in accordance with one of the cases in paragraph 7 might be cancelled or varied before the service concerned is introduced when deregulation comes into effect. Case 1 provides for an operator to be able to vary or withdraw any registration before 28th July 1986. Case 2 would allow him to withdraw or vary a registration up to 30th June 1986, provided he has the support of the relevant local authority—that is, the county or regional or islands council in Scotland or the passenger transport executive concerned—and provided that the variation did not amount to a service improvement. Case 3 would allow him to vary a registration with local authority support up to 27th September 1986. Such support may only be given if the variation is desirable in the interests of producing a service pattern better suited to the public transport needs of the area and if any service improvement that the variation represented could not be met by any other local service if that improvement was not made. Improvements in the context of cases 2 and 3 are defined in paragraph 6(3) as being increases in frequency, route length, the number of stops or the carrying capacity of the service.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all operators are able to enjoy evenhandedness in regard to the application of case 3, which covers what I might call—I am sorry; I am afraid your Lordships may have to do some homework and refer to the Bill—upwards variations of registrations. It is proposed by the addition of sub-paragraph (5) that the relevant authority should only be permitted to support an application by an operator to vary his registration under the case 3 procedure if the service concerned incorporating the variation in question had been put out to tender under Clause 89 and the operator to be supported had either been awarded a contract as a result of such tendering or had tendered to provide the service without subsidy.

The proposed addition of sub-paragraph (6) is designed to ensure that where in such circumstances two or more operators submitted nil tenders they should each be permitted to vary their registrations under the case 3 procedure, even though the authority had given support to only one of them. To allow otherwise could give rise to unfair preference. The need for such amendments is reinforced by the fact that if an authority is believed by him to have unreasonably withheld its support from a case 2 application, the traffic commissioner is empowered to accept the application without such support. No such discretion is open to the traffic commissioner in regard to case 3 applications. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I think we are talking here about circumstances in which operators may vary or cancel registrations during the transitional period. My noble friend's amendments seek to limit what is known as case 3 only to variations resulting from contracts with local authorities or from the submission of nil tenders. Case 3 does not give carte blanche to some operators to cheat the advance registration procedure at the expense of others. I felt that on a previous occasion when this was mentioned perhaps there had been some implication that counties and PTEs might themselves try to use case 3 in that way, though I do not think I detected that as being referred to by my noble friend this evening. Not only must operators obtain county council or PTE support for their application to vary, but the council can only give that support if it believes the variation will produce a better pattern of service for the public.

There is also a further safeguard. If the operator wants to improve or extend his registered service by this means, the council can only support him if the proposed variation would meet a demand which would not otherwise be met. So we are not talking here about allowing a new competing service to emerge by this means to threaten another operator's registered service. It would be a pity to restrict case 3 as my noble friend has suggested. I do not think we should leave the transitional arrangements so tightly drawn that sensible adjustments in the interests of passengers have to be deferred when we believe we can provide, and have provided in case 3, a satisfactory means of allowing them. Nonetheless, I quite understand why my noble friend has moved this amendment and I hope that what I have been able to say is of reassurance to him.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, at this late stage I am very grateful to my noble friend for the way he has answered this amendment. I shall consider carefully every word he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I wish I had some more succinct statement to come back with, but I think he has answered very fairly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 65 to 67:

[Printed earlier: col. 1351.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 57, to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 65 to 67):

Page 170, line 16, leave out ("27th September") and insert !"25th October").

Page 172, line 37, leave out ("27th September") and insert "25th October").

Page 173, line 18, leave out ("28th September") and insert '26th October").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 68 to 73:

Page 173, line 41, leave out ("and section 138 of the 1968 Act") and insert (". section 138 of the 1968 Act and section 1(1) of the Concessionary Travel for Handicapped Persons (Scotland) Act 1980,").

Page 173, line 43, after ("1964"). insert ("and section 1(1) of the Act of 1980").

Page 174, line 3, leave out ("those Acts") and insert ("the Acts of 1955 and 1964 or (as the case may be) under section 1(1) of the Act of 1980").

Page 174, line 45, leave out from ("repeal") to ("comes") in line 46 and insert ("mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above").

Page 175, line 7, after ("1964") insert ("or (as the case may be) under the Act of 1980").

Page 175, line 30, leave out ("II") and insert ("IV").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move these amendments en bloc. They are necessary to allow the Concessionary Travel for Handicapped Persons (Scotland) Act 1980 to operate effectively during the transitional period, which is something we all want. In effect, they adapt the transitional provisions for travel concession schemes to fit with Scottish legislation. Amendment No. 73 corrects a wrong reference in paragraph 23. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

7.30 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 74:

[Printed earlier: col. 1314.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No 74): Schedule 7, page 177, line 12, at end insert—

("General

1. In England and Wales, the provisions made by or under any enactment which apply to motor vehicles used—

1. (a) to carry passengers under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum; and
2. (b) to ply for hire for such use; shall apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than nine passengers as they apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than eight passengers.").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 75 and 76:

Page 178, line 26, after ("services") insert ("as it applies to England and Wales").

Page 178, line 37, at end insert—

(" . In section 34 ofthat Act (assistance for rural bus or ferry service) as it applies to Scotland—

1. (a) subsection (1); and
2. (b) in subsection (3), the words "(1) or"; shall be omitted.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 75 and 76, and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 and 82.

Amendment No. 81: Schedule 8, page 186, line 28, column 3, after ("34(1)") insert ("as it applies to England and Wales").

Amendment No. 82: Page 186, line 29, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 34, as it applies to Scotland, subsection (1) and, in subsection (3), the words "(1) or".").

These amendments will ensure that the amendment that we agreed at Report stage to Section 34 of the Transport Act 1968 will have the same effect in Scotland as it does in England and Wales. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 77:

[Printed earlier: col. 1320.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 77 is consequential on No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 77): Schedule 7. page 179, line 4, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(1)").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 78:

Page 179, line 6, after ("63(1)") insert ("or by a regional or islands council under section 63(2)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to adjust the amendments to Section 56 of the 1968 Act made at Report stage through Amendment No. 352, in order to ensure that they apply correctly in Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Repeals]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 79:

Page 185, line 21, column 3, after ("(1)(a)") insert ("the word "and" immediately following sub-paragraph (ii),").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 80:

[Printed earlier: col. 1320.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 80):

Page 185, line 53, column 3, after ("15") insert ("subsection (1)(a),").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82:

[Printed above.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 were spoken to with No. 75.I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 83:

Page 187, line 34, column 3, leave out ("subsections (1) and") and insert ("subsection (1), the words "Subject to subsection (3) below" in subsection (2) and subsections").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 84:

Page 187 line 41, at end insert—

("1974 c. 7.

The Local government Act 1974.

In Schedule 6, paragraph 22(7).").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 85:

[Printed earlier: col. 1349.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with No. 45. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 85):

Page 187, line 41, at end insert—

("1976 c. 76.

The Energy Act 1976.

In Schedule 1, in paragraph l(l)(c) the words "or Part III" and "and", paragraph l(l)(d) and in paragraph 1(2) the words "section 60 of and the words from "general" to first "vehicles".").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 86:

Page 189, line 52, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 13, paragraphs 48 and 49").

The noble Earl said

My Lords, this is the last, but by no means the least, of the amendments. It is technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I think we have reached a suitable moment for us to break for a short while. Therefore, I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned until 8 o'clock.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.34 to 8 p.m.]

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, perhaps this would be an opportune moment to make one or two brief observations on the Bill. Apart from the Second Reading of the Bill, we have spent 10 very full days and many late nights debating it. It has been dealt with extremely thoroughly. As everyone is aware, it is a massive Bill and very complex. It is massive not just in terms of its size but also—perhaps even more importantly—in the purposes which lay behind the Bill.

The whole question behind this Bill centres on the philosophical division between competition and coordination. That does not necessarily mean that each of them are totally exclusive of the other. However, it appears that the "kick" of this Bill, and having known the Secretary of State for some time, having served on various committees with him over the years, is ruthless competition. That seems to be what concerns him.

In a way, this is unfortunate, just when we were reaching the point in Britain when the PTEs, warts and all, were beginning to show their progress and develop into something which people from all over the world came to see, copy and emulate. Despite all the statements that have been made, and I speak as someone who always likes as much efficiency as possible, I do not believe that efficiency should be a political football. Efficiency is something for which we should always strive, provided efficiency is taken in its widest sense.

When one examines the way in which the PTEs were working and the cost of them, and then compares them with any other transport system in the world, it becomes clear that we were getting very good value for money. Therefore, to apply only the criterion of subsidy was unfortunate, particularly if one only considered the situation in this country and did not compare it with that of the Americans, the French, Italians and Germans—all of whom spend a great deal more on their public transport systems than we do. It says a great deal for the professionals in the industry that we have such a good service for the money they receive.

It has also been shown that if one considers the progress of the Bill from the very first day it started in the Commons to the present, one realises that a number of the points which were made time and time again have only lately been accepted. I shall not deal with them now but a number of clauses which were begged for in another place have been accepted in some cases only tonight, in the very last gasp of the Bill.

I do not mean to make a party political point. It is true that parties get tied up with their own problems and the parliamentary schedule and timetable. However. I shall say that this Bill more than any other with which I have dealt is a good example of why one should resurrect again the concept of pre-legislative committees to examine important and, in particular, technical Bills. If only we could find some way of settling quickly the philosophical divisions. A Bill could move on to a pre-legislative committee to hammer out some points before it reached the main Committee. This idea has been spoken about for a very long time by people interested in parliamentary procedures.

I should like to thank in particular those people who have been advising us on this Bill. They were quite exceptional. One is made even more conscious of the fact that a pre-legislative committee would almost certainly come up with something better than any Government could. I am not speaking politically. The point is that when a Government produces legislation, they then take up an entrenched position. If there was a pre-legislative committee and both sides had the quality of advisers who were available to us on this occasion, then that would be a better way to proceed.

I would not say that our advisers have been properly rewarded by our performances, but little of what we have been able to do would have been possible without them. It would be invidious to mention names because all those advising us on this side of the House have been most helpful.

By and large we were shown great courtesy and patience by all the Ministers concerned. There were occasions when, late at night, people became slightly upset; but that was usually taken care of a day or two later. I personally learned a great deal. It is sometimes the case with a complicated Bill that it is only at the point of finishing with it that one begins to understand many of the provisions it contains and to comprehend its general philosophy.

Finally, I may say that in dealing with a Bill of this kind, particularly in respect of its technicalities, one develops associations with other people interested in the same subject in the House itself. Those friendships are very valuable. For me, as a fairly recent arrival in this House, dealing with this Bill has been a great experience.

All of us who have spent time on this Bill are fervently interested and concerned about public transport being of service to the community. We hope that the people involved will get this transport system going, warts and all. We in this country tend to denigrate ourselves a little too much; but I am sure noble Lords who have travelled abroad will agree that we have a very good transport service by comparison, with a dedicated body of public servants. I am sure they will make the best possible use of what I cannot help saying is politically an unfortunate Bill. Time will tell, and I shall be only too pleased if in two or three years' time I shall be able to say to the Government, "You had it right and I had it wrong".

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I join in many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. May I first say how much I enjoyed working with him. This is the first occasion on which we have worked together on a Bill. Although we have differences as to what we would put in place of this Bill, nevertheless it has been a pleasant experience. I am sure the noble Lord will understand if, having said that, I repeat something that I said on Second Reading; that is, how good it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, back in action in the latter stages of this Bill. Noble Lords on all sides of the House are extremely pleased to see him.

With a Bill such as this, one is of course disappointed not to have made more headway. Before we reached Report stage I was rather depressed about this Bill. I felt we were making no headway at all. In the past two weeks we have managed to improve the Bill to a degree. There has been a certain amount of flexibility shown by the Government which was not apparent in earlier stages, either here or in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, we all learnt about the Bill as we went along. In a sense one would like to start again with the knowledge we now have, but heaven forbid that we should go through this experience again!

I am sorry that we have not made more progress in certain areas. The timetable is a point on which we on this side of the House are still concerned. Provision for

safety on minibuses is another area in regard to which we are still not happy. Certainly from my own point of view I am deeply sorry that we have not been able to have greater assurances as regards pensions. Although I do not hesitate to say that concessions and progress have been made, I wish it had been possible for the Government to give greater assurances than they were able to do.

As regards concessionary fares we have had much progress in relation to the disabled. Again, one worries about the fact that we are moving inexorably in the direction of tokens rather than the sort of concessionary fare systems that have been introduced in recent times and which I fear will be no more. I regret that we were not able to make more progress on the subject of preserving the integrated services like Tyne and Wear and others which might have been made.

Nevertheless, there have been many changes in the Bill since it started its progress through this House. It is a pity that some of these changes were not made at earlier stages so that we could perhaps tidy them up even more. As with all transport Bills, of course, it has not attracted a heavy attendance in the House, although I believe more noble Lords have taken part in this Transport Bill than in others; even if some of them have spent most of their time accusing us of wanting to wreck the Bill. I must say that I personally resented that accusation on a couple of occasions because it has not been our intention in moving amendments, certainly in the later stages, to try to destroy the purpose of the Bill, however much we may have disagreed with it.

I also felt slightly uncomfortable with the fact that we have been accused of not having any other options to put before your Lordships' House. I still believe that off-street competiton would be better than on-street competition, and that comprehensive competitive tendering, although it my not be the total answer, might have been a route down which we could have progressed if there had been more time to develop it.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I thank the Government Front Bench for the consideration they have given, the time they have given and the way in which they have dealt with some of our amendments that were perhaps less well drafted than they should have been. Indeed, like him I wish to say a very firm "thank you" to all those who have been advising us from outside. We have had much good advice from outside, and I hope the talent which is within the group of people who have been advising us is put to good use in whatever future there is in the bus industry in this country.

It would not be improper to suggest that some of the Government advisers have been helpful, at least in the later stages. We wish them well, particularly those who will not be in the Government service for much longer because they have other and more important things to deal with.

The Bill is an act of faith by the Government. It is an act of faith to which I cannot subscribe because I fear that at the end of the day we will have a worse bus service. I know that the Government will continue to say that they have every hope that it will be successful.

I fear it might not be so. I hope that the damage which is done to bus services, both urban and rural, will not be too serious and that we do not too soon have to come back to another transport Bill to rectify the mistakes which I believe are fundamentally still at the heart of this Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Carmichael, in thanking my noble friend Lord Belstead and his two helpers very much indeed for the way they have conducted this extremely complicated and difficult Bill. It has been done brilliantly and we are most indebted to them.

I followed the Bill from start to finish although my main interests were in the rural areas, particularly in Scotland, and with the handicapped. I am delighted that the Government have recognised the importance of making special arrangements for disabled, handicapped and old people. I also very much hope that the Government will be careful to ensure that rural services are kept at their best. That is most important.

I do not know whether many people realise how frightfully important it is to have a good bus service, if one lives in an area, as I do, where there is no railway transport at all, and where only buses or private motor cars operate. I am sure the Government will watch over this and see that what we hope for—a very much better and efficient service—will occur. If it does not, I hope that the Government will see what can be done to improve matters, because it is always possible to bring in amending legislation if plans do not work out. In any case, I think the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has made a splendid job of this Bill. I congratulate him, and I hope that the Bill will be a great success.

Earl De La Warr

My Lords, before I begin to offer my thanks perhaps I can refer to something which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said. He said that there had been criticism that those in opposition had not produced an alternative plan. In fact, I have here an eight-page document headed Briefing note: Is there a need for a Transport Bill?—an alternative plan. It would take only about 20 minutes to read to your Lordships. Would anyone like to hear it?

Noble Lords

No!

Earl De La Warr

Perhaps not, my Lords.

My first duty must be to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for the way he has masterminded the Bill. It has been immensely impressive. The splendid aspect is that with all his massive intellectual and rhetorical ability he has always been so kind to all of us, and perhaps especially so to me, the renegade member of his party. I must say that I am like the prodigal son returning to the fold and I hope he will receive me back in the spirit in which I return.

I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness. I remind him that if I miss anything I always try to read the proceedings in Hansard. I take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, more particularly because it was his grandfather who succeeded in launching me down an ice track on a rather more dangerous type of vehicle than any bus—the little skeleton on the Cresta Run—and which he continued to enjoy until he was about 65.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Eighty, my Lords.

Earl De La Warr

I am sorry, my Lords, 80. I should like to say how much I enjoyed working with the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Tordoff. I may not call them my noble friends, but I should like to say that 1 call them my friends. I now have two new friends and very agreeable to me it is. I have much enjoyed working with them.

I should like also to thank—and I may only do so in a completely anonymous way without mentioning names—a dedicated group of busmen who have forgotten more about the bus industry than I shall ever know. Each of them has been busy with his job in getting ready for reorganisation, but at the same time they have been feeding a number of us with information without which we could not have made nearly so substantial a contribution as we have to our debates. For me this has been in many ways a series of nostalgic occasions, particularly during my peregrinations around the country in order to prepare for this Bill, when I met many old friends from the days, which are now rather a long time ago, when I was at least on the fringe of the bus business. That was a lovely time for me. I have frequently carried my bus driver's licence in my pocket as a kind of talisman. Alas! I left it at home in the country today, and that may have been an unfortunate omission on my part.

That is all that I should like to say, other than that I shall not forget my old friends in the industry. They are going into a new and certainly very exciting world and, we must hope, a successful one. With all my heart 1 send my very best wishes to those dedicated men around the country who make it their responsibility to transport millions of passengers day after day, week after week and year after year. They are a marvellous bunch of people and we owe them very much indeed.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his very kind reference to me? As one who attended throughout the Committee stage but who was silent, I can possibly comment on one or two things as they struck me then. Noble Lords will be very pleased to know that I do not propose to give the Second Reading speech which I prepared but which I was unable to give for reasons that noble Lords will understand.

I should like to thank next my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove who has taken the brunt of the work on the official Opposition Bench and who was ably assisted by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. As Lord Tordoff has commented, the cross-party, inter-party co-operation on this Bill has been outstanding. This demonstrates the number of individuals in this House who are concerned with public transport and who can get together on issues which they think are of primary importance to the people that matter: the passengers.

I remained silent, as I have for so many of the sessions, but I should like to say how much I appreciate how the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his colleagues handled this Bill. One of the troubles with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if he does not mind me saying so, is that he is so nice and courteous that he makes a rotten Bill look as if it is God's gift to man. Throughout this Bill he has been courteous and listened to the points raised. I believe that to some degree the Bill has been improved as a result of discussions in this House and the co-operation of the noble Lord and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench.

Of course it must be recorded that the operating bodies were opposed to this measure. The local authority associations were opposed to this measure. No other industrialised society has gone forward with deregulation of its public transport and its bus service as is now determined in this Bill. We are in uncharted territory as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said; it is really an act of faith on the part of the Government in putting forward their proposals.

I have been rather surprised that the Government have not grasped what I believe have been honest endeavours on the part of all sections of the House to give the Secretary of State opportunities for reserve powers. I shall be most surprised if some kind of reserve powers are not required in some areas at certain stages. I believe that those offers were made honestly in the interests of public transport.

From my contact with local authorities I am convinced that they will do the very best they can under this Bill in the interest of their communities; but it must be stressed that many local authorities will find themselves in difficulties because of a lack of financial resources owing to other measures which have to be taken and the problems that they will be facing. With the local government Bill and the provisions of this Bill we will see the possible endangering of what I believe, as I think my noble friend commented, has been one of the best efforts for integrated transport in conurbations that we have seen with the PTAs and the PTEs. We can only hope that the new machinery will be equally effective.

There is considerable expertise available and reference has been made to the advisers who have advised those who have been taking part in this Bill. I am certain that expertise will be available to the department. There is expertise in the department; but there are other experts outside whose co-operation will be invaluable in getting the best we can out of the measures contained in this Bill. I also hope that there will be the widest possible consultation with the local authority associations because when the Bill becomes law they have to do their best for the people who really matter: the passengers.

We do not know what 1986 will present—we may know in a few weeks' time—but there has now been a Transport Bill every year since 1980 and I have no doubt that we may be facing another one before long.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I think it is possibly now my turn, and I agree with absolutely every comment that has been made. Everyone has made remarks complimentary to everyone else. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, so rightly said, we are very pleased with the cross-party spirit that has prevailed. I am very pleased on this occasion that that co-operation has gone so wide, and I think it has added to the spirit of debate and the spirit of the Bill. However, I do not think we should be too cosy.

I should like to get one point right. I believe that the Government message that my noble friend has put forward is that the state of the bus industry has been such that the number of passengers has declined, fares have risen and subsidies have increased. I hope I have not misunderstood—and the Goverment may have made the point among one or two other matters—but the situation is not absolutely the same for the whole country. From John o'Groats to Land's End—or even from the Goodwin Sands to Cape Wrath—these islands are very different and there are a lot of centres in between.

The point I must come to is that I believe the worst bus services have been in the rural areas where either bus services have been reduced or the village population has been diluted by people buying second homes. However, that is not really what I am trying to get at.

The large conurbations which have produced an excellent service have been rather ignored. Not necessarily because of their political masters, their fare subsidy has been kept low. I leave this message with the House. Whatever happens to them now, those areas have had good bus services. The Government's general policy on competition might bring good results if some splendid person comes along and wants to take them over. But I shall say no more about that.

I come now to a completely different point which I believe has so far been ignored. It concerns the bus manufacturers. There has been no opportunity to discuss this industry because there was no amendment that one could put down in relation to it, but the industry is in a sore plight and the Bill has not done much to help it. One could argue about the need for such provision in a free market. This is not really a point for this Bill, but I hope that the Department of Transport and the Department of Industry can give bus manufacturers the right advice. There is a splendid spirit in the industry which I am sure will enable it to produce and sell a lot of buses. Alas, I cannot see a lot of new buses being ordered very quickly as a result of this Bill. If the industry can carry on over the next few years with its export orders, it will survive. For many years it served the country well.

There is little more for me to say. However, I reiterate the remarks of my noble friend Lord De La Warr and noble Lords opposite that this has been a most pleasant Bill. The whole discussion began before this Bill even started when we had a debate on the White Paper a year or so ago in which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke for the Opposition. My life will be fairly empty now! A lot of very small points, right to the very last, have been excellently covered, and I congratulate the Government and their advisers in the department for covering all the ground that needs to be covered.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I wish to say a brief word from the Cross-Benches. I should like to have done so while the noble Baroness, Lady White, was on the Woolsack. The passage of the Bill through this House has been characterised by its irenic atmosphere. I would contrast that with the embattled atmosphere that we so recently experienced on the Local Government Bill. There was then a distinctly unpleasant atmosphere, and, as a concomitant of that, very little movement or concession; the sides were too entrenched. I most strongly commend those who managed to create the peaceful climate in this House in which this Bill has been examined. It is only in that kind of climate that we can get the House of Lords working in its proper, relaxed role as a revising Chamber. Somehow or other, it must be created more widely and on more Bills than has been the case in the past. This has certainly been a model occasion.

I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench on the receptive and flexible way in which they have treated the amendments put forward. I speak especially for those who have put forward amendments in the interests of the elderly and the disabled—those amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has already mentioned. If I may for a very brief time dwell on this, it is quite remarkable that the Government have seized the opportunity—after, so to speak, they have been reminded that it is there—of this major reorganisation of road transport to write into the Bill provisions for the convenience, and other advantages, of the elderly and disabled. Perhaps I may briefly list some of the provisions.

I start with Clause 7, which provides for the traffic commissioners to take account of the needs of disabled people. That is a theme which runs throughout the Bill. Clauses 57 and 63 provide for PTAs, PTEs and other authorities, in the discharge of all their functions, to have regard to the needs of disabled people. Clause 63 enables authorities to provide support for minibus services for elderly and disabled people. Clause 106 enables authorities to make grants for the provision of vehicles, and so on, for disabled people or for adaptations designed to meet their needs. Clause 107 makes provision for London Regional Transport to provide support for voluntary groups providing transport for disabled people in London. That includes support for funding for Dial-a-Ride. In Clause 125 there is not only provision for the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, but even at this late stage in amendments on Third Reading the Minister came to the House and moved the amendment for the Secretary of State to be compelled to—he "shall"—provide guidance. That is a considerable package, and it runs like a generous theme throughout the Bill. It is of enormous encouragement to those interested in the welfare of the elderly and the disabled, and it should provide an exemplar for future legislation.

I cannot be too grateful to the Government for their response to the suggestions put forward. From the Cross-Benches I should just say, as I did on an earlier occasion, that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), would very much like to have been here and wishes to associate herself with what I am saying, as would the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. They have reservations, but in view of the large list of important amendments made to the Bill, it would be churlish to rehearse them.

Despite the fact that there is no duty laid on the operators—which is what we should like to have seen, but I gather that that would have been against the underlying philosophy of the Bill—we have achieved about as much as we could possibly have hoped to achieve. That is greatly due to the atmosphere that has prevailed in this House, which is due not merely to the good offices, the good will and the kindness of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, but also to the way in which the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Tordoff, have approached the whole operation from the Opposition Front Benches.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, we have now come to the end of our consideration of a long, controversial and complex Bill. We have spent altogether some 70 hours discussing its provisions in detail. We have voted 20 times; we have added 17 new clauses and a new schedule; and we are sending to another place around 400 amendments for consideration—and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, says that we are making no headway! It has been an arduous exercise for us all, but your Lordships' House has conducted itself throughout with remarkable patience and thoroughness. The Bill leaves this place improved in a number of important respects. Shortly I should like to mention just some of those and the more significant changes that we have made.

I think I must first say a word about the fundamental purpose of the Bill. The Bill is about putting the customer first, by removing unnecessary restrictions over competition between bus operators. In most other sectors of the economy we all regard competition as perfectly normal and, indeed, vital to the interests of customers. If the bus industry is doing well under the present highly restrictive system of road service licensing then the arguments for retaining protection would be more understandable. But the industry is not doing well. Urgent steps are needed to arrest the pattern of declining services and falling patronage, and the accompanying trend of rising costs and escalating subsidies which have characterised the industry in recent years.

By adopting the market approach, which has been so successful in other sectors of the economy, the Bill will remove the obstacles to efficiency and initiative in the provision of local bus services. It will set the industry free to give a better service to the passenger, which in turn will attract more passengers and lead to better prospects for the industry in the future. So this is a good Bill, and it will bring great benefits.

But, my Lords, no Bill is perfect. There is always room for improvement. Your Lordships have undoubtedly secured some important improvements over the last four months, several of which we have agreed upon earlier today. I will not detain your Lordships by reciting the many drafting and technical amendments which the Government themselves have put forward. There have been a lot of them, and your Lordships have been very tolerant. They are important to the effective working of the Bill. Many of them came to light as a result of points made during debates on related amendments. This process is an important part of getting the Bill technically right, and, after all, that is an important function of this Chamber.

Among the substantive changes to the Bill have been the new provisions to ensure that the interests of the elderly and disabled passengers receive due attention in the provision of bus services under the new regime. The advances here have been considerable, and are too numerous for me to list in detail. However, I should perhaps just mention the new clause of my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox to establish the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. To her, and to the noble Viscount. Lord Ingleby, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and their colleagues on all sides of the House, I offer my congratulations for the considerable achievements they have made for the elderly and disabled.

On many occasions, the Government have willingly moved more than half way to meet noble Lords on this issue, but in doing so we have been alive to the dangers which my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, warned us about. We have, I think, avoided placing duties on operators which would have discouraged them from providing services at all, particularly in the more remote areas of the country. That would not have been in the interests of the elderly or the disabled or, indeed, anyone else for that matter. I believe we have got the balance just about right.

My Lords, I have mentioned two of my noble friends already. To single out individuals, I know, is invidious, but apart from my noble friend Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I wish particularly to thank my noble friends Lord Nugent of Guildford, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, Lord Beloff. Lord Bruce-Gardyne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who has spoken wise words at crucial moments during our deliberations. May I also thank my noble friend Lord Henley whose initiatives brought about the amendment on Report stage concerning the Post Office.

My Lords, in thanking my noble friends on this side of the House, I do not confine myself to those who have supported the Government, or not, as the case may be. My noble friends Lord Teviot and Lord De La Warr have made their views on the philosophy of the Bill clear throughout, but this has not prevented my noble friend Lord Teviot from putting forward some positive and constructive amendments as well, which we in the Government have been glad to accept. I have in mind particularly his amendments to provide for the continuation of staff benefits for employees of passenger transport executives who transfer to public transport companies, and his amendments to the fuel duty rebate provisions to encourage the best use of spare seats on school services and services for the elderly and disabled.

My noble friend Lord Sandford, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton have also played important roles. The improvements to this Bill have not been confined to changes in policy. Noble and learned friends have pursued with great tenacity the arguments over the technical merits of certain clauses—I have in mind, of course, the celebrated Clause 16 and the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The amendments which we agreed earlier today to that clause are an example of the influence of the House over the form as well as the substance of Acts reaching the statute book.

I should like to place on record my appreciation of the conduct of the debates by those on the Opposition Benches. I am full of admiration for the consistently professional performance of noble Lords opposite—the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who sadly is not with us tonight, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill; and from the Liberal Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I am glad we have been able to meet a number of their points and to move towards their position on a number of others, including clarification of the relationship between passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives, and the extension of the transitional period—amendments which we finally settled today.

Of course the House is extremely lucky to have had the benefit of the expertise and breadth of knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He has been a formidable opponent throughout and has left us in no doubt about his reservations about the overall effects of the Bill. That has not prevented him from pursuing detailed questions and seeking assurances from the Government, particularly as to the effects of the Bill on operators and their employees. I have in mind of course the important debates we have had about the future pension arrangements of NBC employees.

The proposals of the Government, which we discussed at length on re-committal, are intended to make it possible for the trustees of the fund to obtain certainty for benefits equivalent to those which members will have accrued up to the time of privatisation. We also envisage the provision of transfer values from the existing pension schemes to any successor schemes which present NBC employees may join for the future. It is not possible to be absolutely precise here, because of course it must depend on the nature of the new scheme which the employee is joining. But, subject to that, I can say that we envisage it should be possible for the transfer values to buy comparable benefits in a new scheme.

On timing, noble Lords perhaps would not expect that the offer of the Government should remain open indefinitely. But we recognise that the trustees must take proper time to reach a decision and that they will need to take advice. We are very ready to allow all due time for them to consider the proposals of the Government with the care that an issue of this significance requires, but the trustees will also have to keep an eye on the insurance market.

Finally, I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Belstead, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Brabazon of Tara. I have been extremely lucky to have them beside me. They have worked tirelessly. Talking of people working tirelessly, I must also express my appreciation to all our advisers, particularly those in my department who have helped me and my noble friends, and those outside who have advised all noble Lords in trying to make improvements to this useful measure. I am grateful to the whole House for its patience, its attention to detail and its sheer hard work in dealing with this historic Bill. We now send the Bill with many amendments back to another place. I think we can do so with some confidence that it is a better Bill than when we received it, and with some satisfaction that a job has been well done.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

House adjourned at twelve minutes before nine o'clock.