Lords Sitting of 13 June 1991

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

North East Shipbuilders: Closure Terms
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the terms of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission as a result of which North East. Shipbuilders' yard at Sunderland has been closed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the exchanges between Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission with a bearing on North East Shipbuilders contain much commercially confidential information which it is not appropriate—nor would it be the practice—to publish. The essence of these exchanges relating to the closure of North East Shipbuilders and associated matters have however been made publicly available in the minutes of evidence taken before the Trade and Industry Select Committee in October 1989.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as this yard was one of the most modern in Europe and employed a large labour force in an area of heavy unemployment and as a private firm was ready to operate it without any kind of subsidy, does the Minister agree that it is a mockery of accountability when neither Parliament nor the public can be told the terms of the agreement or who made it on behalf of the DTI?
Lord Reay: My Lords, a note submitted by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee on 24th July 1989 sets out the background and the details of Her Majesty's Government's notification of 12th December 1988 to the European Commission of proposals for the disposal of British Shipbuilders' remaining operational subsidiaries and for closure aid to North East. Shipbuilders. In addition, the note summarises developments and discussions with the Commission relating to North East Shipbuilders between the date of notification in December and the Government's decision in July 1989 that the future interests of Sunderland would not best be served by continuing to pursue shipbuilding bids at the expense of the enterprise zone and other measures to promote new jobs in the town. I have nothing usefully to add to the information contained in that submission.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, do the Government and the Minister know that in fact two offers to purchase the yard were made clearly without any subsidy of any kind from the Government? I should have thought that that would appeal to this Government perhaps more than to any other. For the
1198
Minister to say that the commercial information is confidential is a scandal. Is that the way to proceed in a situation of this kind where literally thousands of skilled and dedicated workmen are thrown on the scrapheap, as has happened? I must say to the House that it is a most unsatisfactory reply from the Minister.
Lord Reay: My Lords, by December 1988 unsuccessful attempts to find a satisfactory buyer for the Sunderland yard had dragged on for many months. Work in the yard was running out and a decision had to be taken so that the workforce could be given redundancy pay and the opportunity to find new jobs. That was the principal reason why the yard was closed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why is the Minister so shy about declaring the reason for Mr. Newton, the responsible Minister at the material time after the date to which the Minister has just referred, having gone to Brussels if it was not to seek to ensure that the Sunderland yard could be reopened? Why does the Minister not inform the House or at least the people of Sunderland, who surely are entitled to know why their jobs have disappeared, of what went on and what was the essence of the deal, without giving away any so-called confidential information?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in discussions with the European Commission in June 1989 on specific proposals from a new interest for continued shipbuilding in the yard, it became clear that the Commission would open a procedure under Article 93.2 of the Treaty of Rome. That would have resulted in reopening the package notified in December 1988, jeopardising both earlier disposals and the Sunderland remedial measures. Therefore the Government concluded that the best interests of Sunderland and other areas which would have been affected would not be served by submitting a renotification to the Commission.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister say why Mr. Newton, the Minister later responsible, apparently was not told of the agreement for a period of many months? Who was the Minister responsible for making the agreement?
Lord Reay: My Lords, Ministers knew perfectly well about the negotiations in Brussels. It is nonsense to suggest that the notification to Brussels and the response from Brussels were withheld from Ministers. However, it is a sad fact that in the three years prior to the closure announcement, NESL alone incurred losses of £100 million. Perhaps I may remind the House that the cost of British Shipbuilders to the taxpayer in the 10 years of its existence was around £2 billion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House who within the Government were responsible for pre-judging the result of any case brought by the Commission under Article 93? Surely somebody must have advised the Government. I do not know which European lawyers advised them or whether they advised themselves. Why should they

1199
automatically have assumed that any proceedings brought under Article 93 which are challengeable in the European Court would have had the results that the Government say that they might have had? Or is there some reason other than the possibility of Article 93 being brought into operation?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords. As I explained, when it became clear that the Commission would open a procedure under the article to which the noble Lord refers and that that would result in reopening the package that had been notified, which would have jeopardised the earlier disposals and the remedial measures, the Government concluded that the interests of Sunderland and other areas would not be served by submitting a renotification.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for speaking a second time. I should like to ask the Minister a specific question. He said that Mr. Tony Newton, the Minister, knew that negotiations were taking place. Will he say specifically what were the contents of the negotiations? That is the crucial point.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have explained the situation. When the specific proposals from a new interest came up in conversations with the European Commission, it became clear that the Commission would open a procedure under Article 93.2 of the treaty. For that reason the Government concluded that it would not be in the best interests of Sunderland or other areas to submit a renotification to the Commission.

Unemployment
3.9 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people were unemployed at the latest date for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in May 1991 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,244,200.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the figure issued today that he has just given is the 14th consecutive monthly rise in unemployment and that unemployment is rising faster than in any other European country? I look forward to the 14th different excuse for that lamentable and devastating figure. Is the Minister aware that the number will continue to rise for at least six months, and some people say 12 months, for two reasons? First, the current severe contraction in demand is clearly deflationary in the short term. Secondly, the clear fall in investment will cause long-term damage to the supply side of the economy. Does he agree that a complete reversal of policy from the present Government's actions on unemployment is now due?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this month's increase in seasonally adjusted unemployment is the smallest since January. Therefore there is unmistakable evidence that the battle against inflation is being won. Retail price inflation has fallen for several months. A continued and sharp reduction is expected over the remainder of 1991. As a result, in recent months interest rates have already fallen by some 3.5 per cent. Job prospects will improve following a resumption of economic growth.
Lord Morris: My Lords, how effective has Her Majesty's Government's legislation been in reducing the number of working days lost to industrial disputes?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if one compared the early eighties with the late eighties, one would see that the decline in the number of working days lost has been dramatic. That demonstrates the effectiveness of trade union legislation. The number of working days lost in the 12 months to April was just under 1 million, the lowest 12-month total since the year to April 1942. The number of recorded stoppages in April 1991, at 32, is the lowest for any April since the current series began in 1930.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it is good to hear that the situation will get better. Will the Minister inform the House what new or different policies the Government propose to pursue to ensure that matters will not become bad again, as has always happened in the past?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are determined that the battle against inflation will be won. That is the most important issue that the Government are tackling; and they have been very successful.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Government agree that we are in general far too complacent about this continuing high rate of unemployment? Does it not show that there is now a shift in the economy in favour of capital as against labour, of which we ought to take account? Are not the Government deeply concerned that thousands of young people who have been trained in work are unable to gain employment and start their youth on the dole?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I fear that the nation has been too complacent about wage increases. It is right that we have an unemployment rate for young people which, at 12.3 per cent., is much better than the EC average of 16.4 per cent.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, do those figures include teachers who are made redundant by London boroughs, such as Westminster, in order to cut down their community charge?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we count those who are actively seeking work.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is not only complacent but also evasive? Is he aware that the trend in wage levels is falling and not rising? Is he further aware that it is

1201
expected that the May and June figures will indicate that unemployment will fall, not rise, by 70,000? Do the Government realise that there should now be a sharp reduction in interest rates to single figures? That is the only way that we shall come out of this deflation, as the CBI has already told the Minister.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear the noble Lord's support for the Government's position on curing the problems of inflation. That is what the noble Lord has just stated. Yes, of course we are pleased that average earnings continue to moderate. The average earnings index for April, at 8.75 per cent., is 1.5 per cent. lower than the figure for July 1990. That current downward trend is the longest sustained decline since the early 1980s.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in this country we now have very little regulation in the employment field? Surely the unemployment figures demonstrate that that factor has little to do with regulation. Will he also agree that the fact that wage levels are now more stable also has little to do with unemployment figures? It simply bears out what my noble friends have been saying: that the situation relates to the Government's economic policies.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no. I do not accept that. I believe that the Government's industrial relations activities have produced a climate in which the number of industrial disputes is a credit to this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I believe that no one would wish to underestimate the misery and seriousness of unemployment, but does my noble friend agree with the leading article in The Times this morning? It deprecated the artificiality and want of objectivity of this perpetual trench warfare which turns everything into a party issue.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I agree with my noble and learned friend. I have said from this Dispatch Box, on the many occasions that I have been given the opportunity to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that all increases in unemployment are regrettable and that no one should underestimate the difficulties which unemployment can cause for the individuals concerned or for their families.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister may recall that when we discussed government statistics on 13th March, we agreed that the correct way to calculate unemployment depended on what we wanted to know. I do not wish to know the number of people on benefit; I wish to know the much greater number of people who are not actually in work. Will the Minister inform the House of the number of people on income support who are under 65, not registered disabled and not registered unemployed? Will he also tell us whether the Government have been too complacent about the cost of unemployment to the Treasury?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that issue is a long way from the Question on the Order Paper. However, I am advised that the number that the noble Earl seeks
1202
is in the region of 1.3 million. The Government recognise that there are groups of people who, for one reason or another, are not capable of being available for work and of actively seeking it. It would be unfair to expect them to do so. As they are not required to satisfy those conditions, it is right that they should not appear on the unemployment count.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that to some of us who sit on these Back Benches the charges of complacency and evasiveness which have been made are not justified, especially when they are made by those who urge that we should prime the pump and yet not degenerate into complacency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will consider that the answers given from this Dispatch Box are in no way complacent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government's attitude to this issue is still that enunciated by the Prime Minister some months ago: that if it is not hurting it is not working? How much more hurt do they have to inflict?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The Government are stepping up their positive action to help those out of work to find jobs. One hundred thousand new places in job clubs and job interview guarantee schemes have been introduced. We are doing our best to help those who have lost their jobs.

Israel: UK Trade Policy
3.19 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to prevent United Kingdom companies from giving formal undertakings that they will not trade with Israel.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we deplore the boycott but have no proposals for legislation against it. Companies should be free to act in accordance with their commercial judgment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not a question of commercial judgment but of commercial intimidation? Is he aware that five member states of the European Community have either adopted, or are embarking upon, legislation to ensure that their companies do not comply with the boycott? Is he not further aware that the European Commission has put forward similar proposals? What will be the Government's reaction to that situation? What about level playing fields?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we do not believe that companies can or should be instructed or compelled by law to trade with different parts of the world. Companies must make their own decisions in the light of their own commercial judgment about the markets that they wish to serve. Our opposition to anti-boycott

1203
legislation is a long-established policy followed by administrations of both parties since 1978 when a Select Committee of your Lordships' House considered the matter at length and reported against the idea. I had understood that government policy continued to have the support of the party opposite.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that if made these undertakings are almost certainly unenforceable in law as racially and politically discriminatory and contrary to public policy as in restraint of trade?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are opposed to and deplore all trade boycotts which lack international support and activity. We do not recognise the boycott administration and have no formal communications with the boycott offices.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government are opposed to the blackmailing of our industries by anyone, perhaps I may say this. Surely they will bear in mind that they have been reminded that five European countries already take steps to protect their industries from being blackmailed. In view of the fact that Israel is our second largest market in the Middle East, will the Government again consider taking action to protect British industry from Arab blackmail?
Lord Reay: My Lords, with respect to what other countries do, it is our information that the United States is the only country with effectively enforced anti-boycott legislation. British exporters do well in their trade with Israel. In 1990 our visible exports amounted to £558 million. In 1989 (the latest year for which figures are available) the United Kingdom's share of Israel's imports from the OECD was 8.1 per cent. That compares favourably with our worldwide market share of 7.3 per cent., and is higher than the share of other EC countries which have some form of anti-boycott legislation.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some years ago the late Lord Byers chaired a committee of which I was a member, and it raised the same question with the Government of the day? On that occasion the answer was sympathetic. The Minister appears to be less sympathetic today. Why is that?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I have indicated, there has been no change in government policy. It is not our policy to interfere with the commercial decisions of British firms. We believe in firms taking responsibility for their own commercial decisions. Our policy of allowing companies to make their own decisions on boycott issues is well understood by exporters and has stood the test of time.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend really believe that there is a government more committed to the view of free commercial choice than the Government of the United States? If the Government
1204
of the United States can protect their firms against blackmail, why should that be out of reach of the Government of the United Kingdom?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the United States must take its own decisions with regard to its own trade policy. I have outlined ours.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out, the Commission is considering devising a recommendation with regard to this boycott. If such a recommendation were made, what would be the attitude of the United Kingdom Government towards it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there is no agreement within the European Community to enact legislation on the boycott. I have indicated the attitude of the United Kingdom Government.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, are the Government aware that those companies trading with Arab countries are not asked the same questions as those trading with Israel? Therefore are they carrying out the terms of the boycott to which they were partners some time ago?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that even if the boycott did not exist, companies with important interests in Arab markets would be reluctant to trade with Israel while the Arab-Israeli dispute persists.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps I may ask this question. While the Israelis persistently defy Security Council resolutions, might not the Council solve this and other problems by making the economic sanctions official?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the boycott is a facet of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and a solution must be sought in that context. Confidence-building measures would need to be reciprocal in order to be effective.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister saying that all the reports which have appeared in the newspapers about the European Community putting forward a proposition along the lines that I have stated are untrue? Is he also asserting that the Government would vote against any such proposition because of the views that he has expressed today?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a hypothetical question. There is no such proposal before the Community at the present time.

Homelessness
3.25 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the Salvation Army report Faces of Homelessness, whether they are planning any changes in their policy towards the homeless.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, our initiative to help people sleeping rough in central London took full account of the findings of the survey quoted in this report.
Loud Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that constructive Answer. Will she recom mend that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State takes the proposal on board and meets directly and personally with members of the Salvation Army in order to ascertain whether it can be dealt with on a broader basis?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing has taken on board all the messages of the survey. The data on which the survey was based are somewhat out of date; it was taken in 1988–89. Already there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of people sleeping rough. In London, for example. in January this year, there were 1,000 people sleeping rough; today, there are only 500. That is a remarkable success rate for my honourable friend.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I do not believe that the Minister and I are speaking about the same report. The report that I mentioned was published only today. To say that the Minister for Housing has already taken its proposals into account appears a little far fetched. Is the Minister aware that the report publis led today makes a constructive proposal that could be discussed with the Salvation Army?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is well known that the data contained within the report and upon which it is based date from 1988 and were updated in 1989. A main theme of the report is that we should not merely be picking people off the streets and housing them temporarily but that there should be follow-through accommodation. The Government have such an initiative which falls entirely within the recommendations of the report. So far that initiative has been shown to be remarkably successful.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of 16 to 18 year-olds who are sleeping rough have jobs? They need low-cost rented accommodation. Will she ask her honourable friend the Minister for Housing, whose forward-looking policies we much admire and respect, whether special concern can be shown for them?
Baroness Match: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. A large proportion of the young people living ,in squats and sleeping rough in London have jobs. For that reason my honourable friend the Minister for Housing is addressing the problem. To that end we have asked the University of York to carry out a precise survey in order to update our figures and to underwrite what we are doing in order that we can do even more for young single homeless people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, has the Minister seen the report which shows the relationship between unemployment and homelessness and between homelessness and poverty? Together those three issues form one of the biggest drains on the National Health Service. Would it not be far better to try to tackle those terrible problems and so reduce the strain on the National Health Service?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I hope that nothing that I have said has detracted from the misery of homelessness. However, it is over simplistic to relate the issue to unemployment. There are many contributory factors, not the least of which is the breakdown of family life. Many young people take the decision to leave home without properly thinking about where they will end up and how they will find somewhere to live. Some resources have been made available to help to provide advice to young people in order to ensure that they think carefully before leaving the family home only to end up on the streets of our cities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that legislators and civil servants tend to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone goes through the same experience as they themselves; namely, the move from living at home to living away from home while in employment via the comfortable intermediary stage of university digs and halls of residence? Is there not a case for having in this country what I believe exist in France; that is, foyers—halls of residence for young people who are not students but who are in their first job? They are convenient, supervised and reasonably cheap.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes some interesting points. I understand that my honourable friend in another place has gone a long way down that road by making supervised hostel accommodation available to young people. However, it must be said that if it is made easy for young people to leave home and live in our cities and they are persuaded to do so because there is provision for them, then it is absolutely essential that the resources available go to the most needy. I am confident that my honourable friend is doing that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the initiatives which have been taken since Sir George Young returned to the housing department. Those initiatives are to be acclaimed. However, the problem is so gigantic that the initiatives are minimal. The point made by my noble friend Lord Stallard is that the report can be acted upon or taken into consideration in formulating a policy which may eliminate, or go a long way towards eliminating, the situation which exists, certainly in London at present. We are asking the Minister to have discussions with the Salvation Army instead of doing what has been done in the past with reports such as Faith in the City which have been thrown in the dustbin.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is considerable scope for doing more—improved management of housing authorities; bringing empty properties back into existence; and the continuation of successful initiatives. My honourable friend is consulting all the relevant agencies, and we shall continue to do just that.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 will be taken.

HMS "Endurance"
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I should like to make a Statement on HMS "Endurance" following questions in the House from your Lordships yesterday.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked how it was that instructions were given that the crews were to be told on Monday that HMS "Endurance" was to be scrapped and that there would be no replacement. No such instructions were given. I would also stress that no ministerial authority has been given for any action with regard to the future of HMS "Endurance" or her crew.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for making that Statement which clarifies a point that remained in doubt at the end of last night's debate. Can we now take it that on Monday the crew will be told nothing and that there is no message for them at all? Also, can we take it that Ministers are now prepared to listen to arguments in favour of a replacement for HMS "Endurance"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards the first question, I understand that when the crew returns on Monday it will be told that no decision has been taken. That will be made quite clear. Secondly, as regards HMS "Endurance" and her future, a decision will be taken at the appropriate time.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his frank Statement. As far as it goes, it is some encouragement. Perhaps I may ask him to pursue his inquiries further because I am satisfied that my authority is good and that whether or not instructions have been given, steps were being taken to inform the crew. I can tell the noble Earl that categorically, although I fully accept his helpful reply.
I should like to echo the question of my noble friend. Will it now be possible to use the arguments for the replacement of HMS "Endurance", which is particularly important at a time when we are negotiating in Madrid on the future of the Antarctic Treaty? At this moment the British Antarctic surveys are engaged in their summer plans, which are dependent upon HMS "Endurance". I take it that those plans can now go ahead.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that full consideration is being given to the future of HMS "Endurance". I give the noble Lord that assurance. As regards his claimed source of information, I have
1208
checked extremely carefully in all the relevant departments in the Ministry of Defence and there exists no ground whatever for saying that instructions were to be given.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, does the noble Earl include Portsmouth in that?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it includes all the areas from where such a leak may have come.
Lord Morris: My Lords, my noble friend suggested that a decision with regard to the future of HMS "Endurance" will be taken when the time is appropriate. Is he able to give your Lordships' House any indication of when that may be?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot. I repeat that it will be when it is considered appropriate.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, many of us are grateful to hear what the noble Earl has said. However, I hope that he will not mind me saying that, because of the past record of the Ministry of Defence, currency is given to these rumours. Will he tell us when the future of HMS "Endurance" will be decided? If it is decided to withdraw it, in view of its great international significance as a symbol to the Falkland Islanders, and, incidentally, to the Argentinians, will he undertake that HMS "Endurance" will be replaced by a ship of similar capacity, with a similar role?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord expects me to agree that such considerations should be taken into account. All the requirements for that part of the world will be taken into consideration. I cannot give any guarantee about a future replacement, nor would the noble Lord expect me to.
As regards leaks or suspicious information coming from the Ministry of Defence, I resent the implication because everything is as secret as possible.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I regret that the Minister resents the implication, but if he were as aware as I am of the history of the Ministry of Defence in trying to get rid of HMS "Endurance" he would understand the phrases which I use. If he inquires, he will discover that year after year the Ministry of Defence has made this proposal. Surely the noble Earl can give me a general assurance—and I do not ask for a particular assurance—that this ship, which has become such an important symbol, will be replaced by a ship with a similar capacity and with a similar appeal to the Falkland Islanders.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the future is always kept under continuous review.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is it possible that the confusion may have arisen because of the question of a refit for HMS "Endurance"? Is it possible that the rumour which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I heard yesterday may arise from the fact that HMS "Endurance" is due for a refit and the crew is being paid off for that purpose? Is it possible that that lies behind the rumours which, as the noble Lord, Lord

1209
Shackleton, said yesterday, he had heard? I too heard those rumours from a very senior source in the Royal Navy.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have no wish to add speculation to rumour. I know not where the rumours came from. They are deeply regrettable, wherever they came from. There is not one ounce of truth in them.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the noble Earl has not addressed himself to my question. Is it possible, or is it a fact, that HMS "Endurance" is now going in for a refit and its crew is being paid off and that that gave rise to the rumours?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the crew is not being paid off.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in view of the anxiety which is felt by all Benches of this House and following on from yesterday's important debate, perhaps my noble friend would convey to his right honourable friend the feelings of the House, possibly assisted by the Leader of the House. It is clear that there is anxiety. Those of us who lived through 1980 to 1982 and the discussions regarding "Endurance" before that, have every ground to feel anxious as to the policy to be pursued.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall certainly oblige my noble friend and do that.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the noble Earl give an assurance that HMS "Endurance" is not to be paid off? I thought that that was what he said. If so, it is a striking statement.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I said that the crew were not being paid off. As regards the future of HMS "Endt ranee", no decision has yet been taken.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, as a result of our discussion yesterday it appears that the Navy, Army and Air Force, now based in the Falklands in quite a considerable strength, may be watered down or progressively tailored away. That could have a long-term repercussion on "Endurance" or on a successor performing the same function. Perhaps my noble friend will reassure the House on that matter.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that all such matters as outlined by my noble friend are being taken into consideration.

Heathrow Express Railway (No. 2) Bill
3.41 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Football Offences Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Road Traffic Bill
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 45 [Designation of priority routes]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 41, line 7, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert:
(" (I) A new council for Greater London ("the London Traffic Authority") shall be created for the purposes of transport planning and traffic management.
(2) The London Traffic Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as we asserted in Committee, our case is that London desperately needs a new transport strategy. It needs that for the sake of its people, its business, its ability to compete in international trade and for a variety of other reasons. To apply that strategy, a new democratically accountable authority is required to replace the motley London-wide bodies involved in planning and transport issues at the present time.
I should perhaps repeat the number of bodies that exist in that respect: the London Planning Advisory Committee; the London Boroughs Transport Committee; the London Committee on Concessionary Travel; the London Committee on Accessible Transport; the London Road Safety Committee; the London Channel Tunnel Group, the Traffic Control Systems Unit; and the London Accident Analysis Unit. To that list the Government propose to add yet another body, a new committee for parking enforcement. That is nothing short of a bureaucratic mess. It is no way in which to conduct the affairs of a great city. London is the only capital city in the European Community and elsewhere which is denied its own elected strategic authority. It was denied that as an act of spleen on the part of the Government.
A strategic planning authority will not produce instant solutions. But a start needs to be made with transport issues on a proper London-wide basis taking account of all the issues that impact upon transport. Ministers have claimed in this House and in the other place that Londoners do not want more bureaucracy. But Londoners have had imposed upon them, as I indicated, an incoherent, uncontrollable, unaccountable, host of bureaucracies. I suggest that the Minister is wrong in asserting that there is no place for an authority along the lines that the Labour Party has just enunciated.
The Evening Standard of 21st May immediately responded to Labour's proposal in an editorial comment which appeared on the front page. It stated:
"the fact is that the Conservatives do not have a properly-thought-out programme for London".
That comes from a newspaper which is hardly friendly to the Labour Party. The article continues,
"The Government has shown an extraordinary disregard for the wishes and needs of Londoners, which could cost it dear at the next general election. In the past 12 years, for all the money pumped into the economy and for all the new development in Dockland, London's quality of life has declined. The roads have become more crowded, and public transport is an international disgrace. London has had no powerful voices to speak out for it, as Mitterrand and Chirac speak out for Paris, to remind us that we live in one of the great cities of the world".
In a nutshell, that is our case. Moreover, it was borne out by an opinion poll also carried out for the Evening Standard newspaper a short while after that comment was written. It was an NOP opinion poll which found that 21 per cent. of Londoners thought that things should remain as they are. However, the largest proportion, 44 per cent., favoured the idea of an elected body like the Greater London Council. Other ideas were canvassed but none was as popular as that.
Our case is not for a revamped Greater London Council. I will not go through all the details of our scheme because it has been put forward in a form which even the Government can understand. It has met with widespread approval. Therefore it is not surprising that Londoners, including many Conservative Members of Parliament, condemn the refusal of the Government to acknowledge let alone allay the anxieties concerning transport and other matters which need to be addressed.
Londoners live with transport services which bear no comparison to those in the capitals of our main competitors. They experience the difficulties daily. Moreover, they perceive the problem vividly when they go abroad. That is the most vivid comparison that they are able to draw. To add insult to injury, Londoners pay the highest fares in Europe for all the overcrowding on the trains and on the Tube that they have to endure. The fares are twice as much as for the people of Amsterdam and Frankfurt; four times as much as for the people of Rome and five times as much as for the people of Paris. The CBI recognises the appalling cost of congestion that hits London and the South East. It has estimated that it is something of the order of £10 billion a year. So the CBI clearly
1212
recognises and understands the threat to our competitive position vis-à-vis our main industrial and financial competitors.
The damage to our environment is increasing. People are finding it more and more difficult to obtain decent access to work, shopping and leisure. Notwithstanding the red routes, traffic speeds are comparable to the horse and cab era. The essential objectives of providing a modern, safe, efficient and reliable transport system are central to the prosperity and quality of life of and the quality of environment for the people of this city. They can be met only if we change the existing order of priorities adopted by the Government; if we carry out an extensive review of the roads' programme which the Government have themselves estimated will cost over £17 billion in the next 10 years; if we undertake major infrastructural changes by a marriage between public and private finance; and if we change the policies which have led to staff being removed from stations, booking offices and platforms, all of which endanger the safety of our people.
The future plans of the Conservative Party and the Government show no proper indication that they are prepared to consult Londoners let alone undertake to set up a proper democratic authority. They come forward with certain plans to privatise British Rail, the London Underground and the bus services. That is a sure prescription for causing even more traffic to congest London's roads.
I cannot enlarge too extensively now—in any event the evidence is before the House if it chooses to read it—on all the responsibilities that the authority that we have in mind would undertake. It could begin to enforce service standards for public transport operators; it could begin to undertake proper investment plans based on high environmental standards, taking account of social and economic costs and benefits for users and non-users alike, as well as environmental situations. It could begin to end the prejudice against the railways. I was present when the Secretary of State made his announcement at a Financial Times conference the other day. I actually chaired the meeting. I welcome what he had to say.
What he said was in direct conflict with what the previous Prime Minister believed in and had put forward. Unfortunately one has to ask: where is the beef? Where is the extra money? One week after the Secretary of State seemingly heralded a new golden age of rail, British Rail is told to mothball hundreds of millions of pounds of investment over the coming year. Corresponding new delays will occur for new trains, new track and for signalling improvements. All that will have a major impact on London and the South East. The Government can find no way—they do not want to find a way—of consulting the people of London about these matters. So a new Greater London authority would have as its top priority investment in new rail services and in rapid transit systems, including the improvement and extension of the Docklands Light Railway. There would be new bus priority measures extending bus lanes and giving

1213
buses priority through existing junctions. It would therefore have a proper policy for our buses instead of talking glibly about privatisation.
Otter actions at national level have to accompany these. One is dealing with a huge expansion in the number of cars, which has been projected by the Government themselves. What have the Government to say about that? They have produced a document called Strategic Planning and Guidance, which is an electrirying title. Its main message is that market forces should prevail. That ignores the links between land use, economic development, and transport and the environment. In other words it ignores the essential connections which make for a strategic and integrated transport policy. It fails in every material particular to address the need for a London-wide approach. It has deservedly earned the condemnation of many professionals, developers and even of Conservative politicians.
It is because they equate bureaucracy with democracy that the Government will not be remotely able to answer the problems of London. At the next election they will be shown by Londoners the door out of office. I know that the Government are not going to begin to accept the argument. I believe that the amendment enables us to discuss a very important issue. In an amendment one cannot express all the powers, responsibilities and duties of a London authority of this kind, but we thought it right at this late stage of the Bill to address these issues properly. I urge the House to accept the amendment which I have the pleasure to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, like some of his colleagues, seems to be haunted by the ghost of the Greater London Council and with almost sentimental enthusiasm he wishes to reproduce in part that, on the whole, discredited organisation. The noble Lord was quite right when he criticised many aspects of London transport at present and in particular perhaps London Undmround, which has been very effectively criticised recently by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He was also quite right to criticise the railways.
What he did not do was to give any evidence whatever that setting up this kind of miniature Greater London Council would help to remedy any of these matters. For example, for the railways the problem extends well beyond the Greater London area. Is this democratically elected organisation in Greater London, which the noble Lord proposes should De set up, also to have authority in the crucial areas ir Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex, where the railway problem is probably at its most acute? It certainly cannot be separated from the operation of the railways in the Greater London area.
Therefore, the noble Lord's argument breaks down on its first point. If I may cite the language of London Underground, it is a case of "mind the gap"; that is the gap between his proposal and the problems which he alleges it will solve. What would be the advantage in dealing with these problems? First, he said that it is to be a democratically elected body. He knows perfectly well that if it is democratically elected over Greater
1214
London, it will be very strongly politically split because there are London boroughs which, perhaps not quite to the extent of Liverpool, are still examples of the hard Left of the party opposite. There are other London boroughs which are excellently run by Conservative administrations. By putting these two together in what I imagine will be a fairly closely balanced council or organisation, how shall we help to resolve the problems? The noble Lord realises that if he sets up this council for Greater London it will not administer London transport. Like the GLC before it, it will acquire a large and expensive bureaucracy. That bureaucracy will be responsible, as between the Department of Transport and the local authorities, for some undefined parts of the London transport problem. It simply will not work. But what it will do, undoubtedly, is to add to the cost and delay the speed of operation of those responsible for London transport.
The noble Lord did not even mention from where this proposed body is to receive its funds. Is it simply to go cap-in-hand to the Government and ask them to produce a large subsidy, is it to have powers of local government taxation or is it to depend upon subsidies from the London local authorities? He did not say a word about that aspect. If this is to be an effective body it must be effectively financed. However, there is no indication either in the terms of the amendment or, if I may say so with the greatest respect, in the noble Lord's speech about the realisation of these proposals.
As I understand it, what is proposed at present in the Bill is that there should be a director of traffic for London under the Department of Transport. That seems to me to be the most sensible way of dealing with the many defects in the London transport system. I do not under-rate them; indeed as your Lordships know, I sometimes raise issues in connection with them. But surely it would be sensible to have a senior officer, or director of traffic, under the Secretary of State for Transport who, if he is successful in persuading his chief, will be able to draw on funds for necessary work in London and will have behind him the full authority of the Department of Transport and of central government. That is the practical and workmanlike way of ensuring that London transport is properly looked after. Moreover, that must be the alternative, and a much better alternative, to the creation to this proposed democratically elected council, with its attendant bureaucracy.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that our great capital city is unlike others in that it does not have a separate council or authority to act for it. However, there is a strong argument for saying that when you are dealing with a great capital city it is the responsibility of central government. It is the responsibility of central government to ensure that London is not handicapped by inadequate transport. Not only do the millions of people who come into the London area daily to work have a right to demand of their government—and many of them live outside Greater London—a reasonable means of transport; it is also essential to the efficient working of our great

1215
capital city and its ability after 1992 when we are in the new Europe to establish and maintain its position as a financial centre.
Finally, as I understand it, if London transport is run under this council, no one in either House of Parliament would be able to raise questions as to the working of transport in London. As it is, and under what is now proposed in the Bill, it would be perfectly possible for any of your Lordships to ask a question of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. I see that he does not look enthusiastic about the suggestion. However, it would certainly be possible. Moreover, if I may say so, we know that we should receive a plausible and forceful, if not always wholly convincing, answer. Further, in another place his right honourable friend would be answerable for any defects in the system raised by honourable Members.
Surely that situation, in which central government accept responsibility and answers for the working of the transport system in the capital, is infinitely better than creating as between government and local authorities this shadow organisation which will undoubtedly prove to be expensive, ineffective and riven by political division. I hope that your Lordships will throw out the amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to express my support for my noble friend's amendment. When the noble Lord who has just spoken reflects on what he said, I believe that he may be sorry. The GLC was not a discredited authority; it tried to carry out its various functions. Having been the Lord Lieutenant of Greater London—a fact of which I am very proud —before this Government virtually abolished the Greater London Council, I found that it was very efficient. As I said, it was not a discredited authority.
The noble Lord referred to the hard Left authorities. Perhaps I may refer to some of the hard Right authorities. For example, the City of Westminster, as it is now called. It was never called a city before, so why it is a city now?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It was a city from 1964.
Baroness Phillips: Yes, my Lords; but it was never referred to in quite the that way as it is now. It is no more a city than the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The reasons are there. However, we shall be able to go into that debate some other time.
But how does Westminster exercise its authority? The first thing it does, like Wandsworth, is to boast to the Government about its low community charge. But it cuts every kind of service in the borough. Indeed, we learnt today that it is even shipping out its homeless people to some other authority which wishes to pick them up. If we are to be left at the mercy of such authorities, I hope that the noble Lord will remember that we are not merely talking about Lambeth; there is also my authority of Fulham and Hammersmith, of which I am very proud. I suppose it is possible that he
1216
will find something wrong with that council as it happens to be a socialist authority. However, it is highly efficient, just like the GLC.
It is mystery to me why any authority set up by this side of the House has to be more expensive than those set up by the other side. Perhaps I may give your Lordships another example of what I mean. Westminster Council is sacking various members of staff from schools; at the same time Saatchi & Saatchi has been commissioned to attract teachers into the area. That does not seem to me to be a sensible way of spending money.
We understand that the proposed director of transport will answer questions. But having sat through Question Time day after day in this House, I feel it may not matter how many directors or Ministers we have: we can put questions, but whether we receive answers is another matter. London transport must be under the control of Londoners. I am proud to be a Londoner. I believe that there are not too many Members of your Lordships' House who can claim to have been born in London. We need this authority. I am delighted that my noble friend has used the Bill to try to bring some common sense to this very difficult problem of handling traffic in London.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, some years ago I was involved in transport matters. I used to be savagely and unkindly attacked by those who said that I was responsible for London traffic and that I could not be making a worse mess of the job. I was never able to persuade them to believe that the Government had been so foolish as to devolve responsibility for London traffic to a committee of the Greater London Council. I should say, first, that I shed not too many tears on the demise of that body. However, I am stricken with horror by the present state of affairs of traffic in the capital.
The proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to reincarnate in some shape or form a limb of the GLC in order to supervise a disastrous situation does not encourage me. Indeed, I could not support it. However, at the same time, I should like to make it clear that if I saw a constructive proposal which had any hope of remedying this dreadful situation, from whatever source, I should be glad to support it. But I fear that such a council would be immediately filled with politicians who would surely be amateurs. Although I do not wish to be offensive, such councils tend to become refuges for the bungling amateur which England holds so close to its heart.
Years ago Ernest Marples adopted the radical approach of asking an ex-cab driver for his views. I do not believe that the Government would be making a disastrous error—indeed, they would be doing a rather sensible thing—if they were to repeat that step. They could at least seek the opinion of people who every hour of every day are thinking of and suffering from the congestion which is making our city streets impassable. I hope very much that the Government will consider doing that. I also hope that they might consider making a sensible and what is likely to be a very unwelcome innovation. No innovation in this country is ever greeted with anything except cries of horror; but I believe that the time has come when

1217
deliveries in crowded streets have to be limited to hours when ordinary traffic is not seeking a way through. In other words, deliveries should take place between seven o'clock in the evening and seven o'clock in the morning. That may not be very palatable, but the alternative of going on as we are at present is totally unacceptable.
If we want to keep the highway as something other than a parking lot, I suggest that there should be some thought given as to the number of parking meters which are permissible or advisable. There is a deep belief in our country—one which I do not believe the Department of Transport finds entirely alien—that it is possible, with a bit of luck on a good day, to get a quart and perhaps just a bit more, into a pint pot. It is a belief which I do not share. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will make it clear that he does not, either.
The possibility of having the best of both worlds and of accepting sensible rules only to disobey them immediately, and the almost total rejection of any kind of effective discipline, is producing a very unpleasant mess. I suppose it is a natural phenomenon of our affairs that we should look immediately for someone else to blame; but it is all of us who tolerated a government in London for many years which has been based on confrontation rather than on progress who are to blame. I wish I could see in this amendment some hope of remedying the situation but I do not.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps another voice can be heard in the series of party political broadcasts which seem to be going on at the moment. I am aware that a general election is approaching, but 29 minutes on what is a fairly simple amendment seems to me a little excessive.
I want to make one or two brief points which arise out of what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, said in his interesting Second Reading speech. I agree with him when he says that the amendment is not the cat's whiskers in the sense that it will solve anything. I also agree with him that leaving everything in the hands of the Department of Transport is not the way to solve the problems of London's traffic. However, I do not know of anything better than the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has put before us. Therefore I shall support it today with less than full enthusiasm.
I return to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made in talking about the Traffic Director. The noble Lord should bear in mind that if he looks at Clause 47 he will see that the tasks of the Traffic Director are very limited indeed. They do not fulfil the function that the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Clinton-Davis, were talking about. What is set out i n the clause is no substitute for a co-ordinating person Dr department to look after all these problems. The provision is merely directed towards the red routes. The Traffic Director's job, as I read the Bill, is to co-ordinate the activities of the local boroughs in relation to the red routes, and nothing else. This amendment argues that there is need for some person or body—preferably with some democratic control —to N: able to oversee the whole of the complex arrangements for transport in London. Then there
1218
would be some co-ordination, and buses and trains would in some way overlap in timetable and fare pricing, and so on, and the problems of road traffic in London could be brought under control.
I do not necessarily believe that this amendment is the best way to do that. However, we need to have from the Government a recognition that leaving it in the hands of the Department of Transport and a director of the red routes is not going to solve the problem.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on finding new material to support his rather thin arguments. The Evening Standard article: what a marvellous straw that was to catch hold of showing the deterioration of conditions in London and the need for all kinds of things to be done! We are only discussing one thing here and that is to try and improve traffic movement in London.
At this point I should interpose a correction to the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Clinton-Davis. They both had a bit of fun about my speech last time when they accused me of making out the case for recreating the Greater London Council. However, I had specifically made the case of why it failed in regard to transport. If the noble Lord will be good enough to read the speech again that I made at Committee stage, he will see what I said.
The GLC had quite a good traffic management unit, and gave advice to the London boroughs. The London Boroughs never took the advice. That was the trouble. The GLC had no overall authority. And—God bless my soul!—when the GLC plucked up its courage to build an inner-ring road around London, and even started building it, the political complexion of the council changed and the new Labour council stopped the whole thing. All the property was lost but for two or three bits of it. So we shall never have one now. That is not a very good recommendation.
The point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was that if the London traffic council which the noble Lord proposed was created, it would inevitably be composed of two or three different political parties. The difficulty of getting agreement would be just as acute as it ever was. I am not one who will write off everything the GLC did. I had a long and successful association with it in the planning field. As an overall strategic planner, it was very effective. However, in the traffic field its contribution unfortunately was totally ineffective.
Although the noble Lord expatiated on the Evening Standard article, he did not give us much detail on how the traffic council would work. There is the alternative of either a directly-elected body (which would be a very major undertaking by the whole of metropolitan London) or to invite the 33 local authorities to each send representatives. We all know what would happen then. They could never agree about anything. Therefore either way the noble Lord's concept is a pipe dream. I am sure he knows that because he has immense political and administrative experience. It is

1219
an idea to ask the Government why they do not do this. The answers are so conclusive that the idea simply would not work.
We are considering the red route scheme where the Government are proposing that the Secretary of State should have complete powers over the red routes with regard both to parking and traffic movement. He will set up the traffic director who will have the obligations to win co-operation so far as he can through all the local authorities through which the routes pass. Ultimately, the Secretary of State will be able to take decisions and get the work done. With traffic management, there must be an authority somewhere which can take decisions and settle priorities so as to get the traffic moving. That is what is being done.
We have had a press handout as a result of the pilot red route scheme. It states that journey times have been reduced from 30 minutes to 27½ minutes southbound and from 37 minutes to 28½ minutes on average northbound. Those are tremendous improvements. There are fewer stationary vehicles at the kerbside, especially those stopping illegally. That is also an improvement. Journey times have been improved by one and a half minutes southbound (that does not sound very much) and by almost seven minutes northbound. The most noticeable improvement in journey times is between peak periods. They are 30 per cent, better. That is just the beginning.
Those are significant improvements. The scheme will make the traffic move more quickly in and out of London during peak periods and will prevent the rat-running that many drivers do. They nip through residential areas to get out of the traffic, and disturb them. The red route scheme is a practical traffic management scheme. Once again, I warmly congratulate my noble friend and my right honourable friend the Minister on having the courage to introduce it. It would be impossible for the scheme proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to achieve similar improvements. There would never be agreement. The proposed scheme is the right one. I warmly support my noble friend and I hope that the House will.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I sometimes regret sitting in the Chamber listening to some of the debates, because this is not the right place for anyone to denigrate democracy. Before the war, when I was not involved with local government, I remember a claim made by someone in Europe, that he made the trains run on time. He did that, but later there was a system which believed in a corporate state run by bureaucrats. There is no need to denigrate democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wants only the kind of democracy that suits him politically. It is too bad that a council is sometimes elected that offends someone or does something wrong. That does not mean that we should denigrate the principle of democracy. Otherwise, why on earth are we sitting in the Chamber? This is the mother of democratic parliaments.
The noble Lord referred to Liverpool as a Left-wing council. Liverpool is not a Left-wing council. The trouble with Liverpool is that some moderate, democratic councillors are trying to solve
1220
the problems occasioned by private enterprise moving out of the place. They are battling against some militants who have been deprived of work by private enterprise, and are trying to restore some sanity to Liverpool. Liverpool City Council should not be denigrated. It should be praised and given some encouragement. In that way it may begin to resolve Liverpool's problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that the traffic problem would be solved only by having a director of transport. That will not work. I shall give the noble Lord two examples of why it will not work. I attended a meeting in this building called by the transport authority of London. Present at that meeting was the newly appointed chairman who was called the planning manager of London Transport. I made a simple point. Anyone who crosses Vauxhall Bridge between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. knows something about transport problems and congestion. He accepted that. I asked him whether he thought that it would be wise to have an input from the transport authority into the siting of new developments when planning the transport system for London.
I do not know what the position will be on Vauxhall Bridge when the building now being constructed adds 6,000 more passengers in two hours to the existing problems on that site. Transport is not an isolated problem. It has something to do with the rest of society. Buildings are constructed which create jobs in a limited area, and it is then found that there is no room for the transport system. The essence of the problem is that one cannot plan London's transport unless the land use is planned. It is to be regretted that it was a Conservative government which strongly supported Buchanan who produced his report entitled Traffic in Towns in which he pointed out that simple fact.
No one will deny that the GLC made some mistakes. I would not, but as a result of some of the mistakes it made all the metropolitan county councils were abolished. Anyone who goes to Merseyside now will see the results of county-wide planning. It has an excellent transport system. Excellent public facilities have been provided. They would have guaranteed a good life for the economic powers that be if they had not decided to go down south. That all worked efficiently. The person who was the last Prime Minister —I understand that that is not the correct way to refer to her—suddenly took a dislike to the GLC. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has admitted that there were some good things about London Transport. One of them was that it tried—
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will kindly give way. I did not pay a compliment to the GLC for its contribution towards managing London Transport. I acknowledged that it had a good team of traffic engineers, but I said that it was completely ineffective in persuading the London boroughs to accept its advice.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord has made my point for me. There were some good things about the GLC. Why abolish it? Careful reasoning could have weeded out what was wrong

1221
with it. We could have accepted amendments and changed it. However, there had to be a wholesale abolition because someone took a dogmatic look at the GLC and decided he did not like it. The Government scrapped not just the GLC but all the other metropolitan county councils that they had established.
I do not deny that there were faults, but I deny that the scooting-from-the-hip policy of a certain noble Lady was right. That policy did not just lead to the abolition of the GLC; it led to an open commitment by the Tory Party in Scotland that rates would be abolished. Then we had the poll tax.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, she is not noble.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I will give her the benefit of the doubt. Will the proposed scheme receive the necessary funds? I do not know whether it will. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, took my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis to task because he did not say this and he did not say that. If he had tried to answer all the points that were raised, noble Lords would have complained about the length of his speech. Of course many things are not said, but it is undeniable that if we want to plan London and achieve a proper transport system for London we must take into account land use in London.
I shall finish on this note which is very pertinent. The Government decided to approve the building of Canary Wharf. I opposed that and divided the House on it. I said that no one had the right to construct such a development in the City of London which might overwhelm the whole of South-East England. Property owners in the older parts of London should be asked what is happening to their property values. People should visit Canary Wharf to see the bribes and favourable conditions that are being offered to persuade customers to take part of those buildings.
The Government have ruined any possibility of planning for London. It was all done in a few moments. The trouble with this Government is that they have allowed certain individuals to adopt a certain slant and to carry out simple childlike experiments. Then if they do not like something they abolish it. The Government have removed any hope of a planning authority for London. Until we get one back the situation in Liverpool—in London will become worse.
Do not blame the GLC. It was the Tory Party that said that the abolition of the GLC would lead to a better London, particularly in terms of transport. All I say is, go and have a look. Is it any better? There has been plenty of time.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, the speech to which we have just listened deserves a mention in the Guinness Book of Records for irrelevance. Not one word of it was directed to the amendment under discussion. I shall therefore beg leave to return to the subject which we are discussing.
The first point that I want to make is that the faults of the amendment are threefold: first, it misunderstands the nature of the problem; secondly, it
1222
misunderstands the nature of democracy; thirdly, there is no connection between the evils of transport in London, which are admitted, and the remedy which is proposed.
The proposers of the amendment misunderstand the nature of democracy. The noble Lord who moved the amendment talked, quite rightly, of the problems of the commuter. However, the commuter will not have a vote. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and I would both have votes because we live in London. The commuter would not. People commute from as far west as Newport and from the surrounding counties well outside London. What makes the situation even more bizarre is that the interests of the commuter are totally different from the interests of the inhabitant. Indeed, as will be seen when we discuss the next amendment, the interest of the inhabitant is very largely to keep the commuter out, for many reasons. There is more than a hint of that in the next amendment.
Worse still, the amendment misunderstands the nature of the problem. In so far as it is a single problem it is a national problem, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, and not simply a local problem. It includes through traffic, different types of traffic, law enforcement and many issues which would be outwith the function of the proposed authority.
It is an extremely complex problem. That is where the difficulty arises. For example, a great deal of difficulty is caused by double parking in the streets. That is a question of law enforcement and probably a matter for the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. Many local inhabitants complain bitterly because people park outside their houses. A great many local boroughs quite rightly complain that their constituents do not like people who interfere with the amenities of those who want to live and sleep there.
It is an extremely complex problem which we face. The only certainty is that the remedy proposed, like the last speech, has nothing whatever to do with it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the debate has ranged far and wide. However, although Liverpool may be a long way from London, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that one cannot consider transport in isolation from planning. The two must go together. In that respect I find the amendment deficient because it does not take strategic planning into account. There may be a case for creating a small strategic London authority but it would have to have a different role from the one set out here. Therefore, I could not support the amendment as it stands.
The noble Lord who moved the amendment raised a matter which is dear to my heart when he opposed the setting up of a further layer of bureaucracy in terms of the proposed all-borough joint committee on parking. It is incredible that anyone should think of setting up that degree of bureaucracy, and I shall deal with the matter again when my amendments are dealt with. We already have the LPAC and there is the Secretary of State. That proposal would create an incredibly complicated system for determining penalty charges for parking. As the noble Lord said, it would create another layer of bureaucracy.

1223
A review of local government is currently taking place. At this stage perhaps, instead of all the existing authorities being retained, they could be slimmed down. However, to create another authority at this point would be ridiculous and seems to fly entirely in the face of government policy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, mentioned how marvellous the GLC had been. She was Lord Lieutenant for Greater London, which is the top of the tree, and she saw the best of it. There were good patches but there were also some pretty bad patches. An enormous bureaucracy had developed which cost everyone in London a fortune. When the time came to dissolve the GLC it was discovered that the council owned hundreds of properties which it did not know that it owned. That was a remarkable situation. However, we are not debating the GLC issue now.
Mention has been made of a Traffic Director for London. That is what we need: someone who is detached from the political pressures of his own constituents. When I served on the Greater London Council my constituents did not want a northbound bus lane. There was already a southbound bus lane —I may have that the wrong way round, it is so long ago. My constituents said that no buses used the route and a bus lane would merely make it impossible for their cars to use the road if they were restricted to one lane. For years, while we were the party in power, we resisted the proposal. The day the political complexion of the GLC changed that bus lane was introduced, whether or not it was needed.
Such matters should be judged on an objective basis. An assessment should be made of where bus lanes would be effective and whether other traffic would be able to flow at the same time. It is no good having a bus lane if buses do not use it and there is not enough room for cars to pass. Someone like the traffic director would be able to consider such problems independently, without the pressures of constituents or party policy.
I did not understand my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he said that the Traffic Director would come under the Department of Transport. It is my understanding, having re-read the clause and Schedule 4, that he will be independent and independently appointed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am sorry if that is not so. If it is not so, we should look at the matter again. I believe that, like the men who run Oftel, Ofgas and other such bodies, he should be independent. If he is to work in the Department of Transport that will not be as effective. He needs to be someone to whom everyone, including the boroughs, can make representations.
I did not understand the suggestion that the Traffic Director would have no control over general measures. It is set out quite clearly in Clause 47 that he will have a general duty. It has been said that his powers will be very limited and that he will not be able to do very much. Nevertheless, the general duty is set out in Clause 47(3).
1224
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned that deliveries should be made at night—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me if, with the leave of the House, I draw her attention to the fact that Clause 47(3) refers to the Traffic Director,
"co-ordinating the introduction and maintenance of traffic management measures taken by highway authorities in relation to priority routes".
As I read it, that is the only area in which he can operate. He cannot deal with matters other than priority routes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. If what he says is the case, perhaps the Traffic Director should have a bigger role. That is yet another reason why we do not need the expensive and bureaucratic system that is suggested in this amendment. I believe That the traffic Director could have a much bigger role.
The matter of deliveries has been mentioned. The Greater London Council has been mentioned several times in this debate. That council carried out research which showed that more residents would be adversely affected by deliveries taking place at night than would be the case with day deliveries. Many people live above premises to which deliveries are made. That fact is often not appreciated. A conflict has emerged repeatedly during this debate which concerns how one keeps the traffic moving and copes with deliveries. Perhaps deliveries should be restricted to between 7 a.m. and midnight. This is a most complicated subject but I certainly do not think that this amendment provides the answer. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is opposed to the establishment of a parking bureaucracy. I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I must say that I would not want it to go on the record that I swanned into the position of Lord-Lieutenant during the heyday of the GLC. I remind the noble Baroness that the GLC was set up by the Conservative Party, as was the ILEA. I am a Londoner and I have lived in the jurisdictions of various London authorities throughout the whole of my life. Consequently I know what I am talking about. I do not wish it to appear that I arrived as if from outer space, looked at what was going on and said, "Oh, they are all doing very well". I wonder whether, if the noble Baroness represented a local authority, she would wish that authority to be known as a discredited authority. I resented the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on that matter. The GLC was not discredited. It was simply abolished as that happened to suit the government of the day.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to reply to that point. There is no way that the noble Baroness or anyone else could have known everything that was going on at the GLC because when the GLC was dissolved the members of that body did not know everything that had occurred in the building.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I must say with respect that I do not believe there is a single capital city in

1225
Europe that does not have an overall traffic authority. I do not think politics should enter into this matter in any way. People must get to work and return home again. They must be able to travel to London and travel about in London. The need for an overall traffic authority is self-evident. I shall support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the reasons he has so clearly given.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, we have had a wide-ranging debate on this amendment. The debate has ranged further than the amendment itself. I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton I believe it was a slip of the tongue when he said that until there was a planning authority for London the situation in Liverpool would get worse and worse. Having read the newspapers, it is hard to imagine how the situation in Liverpool could get any worse at the moment.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward again today for a strategic transport authority for London. However, unlike my noble friend Lord Cross, I have not heard anything new and I have not been impressed by any of the points made.
I am fully aware of the proposals from the party opposite for a greater London authority, not only to deal with traffic and transport issues, but other strategic matters as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, these proposals call for a new, integrated transport strategy. This will be integrated into a new London-wide strategic plan that will cover a whole range of other topics. Boroughs will be expected to draw up plans which will no doubt be integrated into this new regional structure plan. A lot of integration is involved in the plans, but what about some effective action to benefit the millions of people who live and work in this city? Perhaps I could repeat that for the Government's part we do not want more bureaucracy and grand strategic plans like the Greater London Development Plan. Eleven years elapsed from the start of preparatory work until ministerial approval was given. The plan was out of date before work could begin. That is not a good precedent.
In our view the Opposition's proposal would add a new layer of bureaucracy. That would blur rather than clarify the lines of responsibility and lead to waste of public money rather than investment, and to delay. As regards traffic in London, we see no need for a London traffic authority to be created for the purposes of transport planning and traffic management. The GLC did not achieve very much in traffic terms, but it certainly interfered with boroughs' activities. It is investment and resources, not more authorities, that are the key to action. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the investment sums are so large that they can only be decided at government level, involving the Treasury. On the other hand, more authorities are likely to lead to delay. In the present case a good many priority routes should be operating and delivering worthwhile results in the time it would take to establish a new traffic authority and prepare integrated plans.
1226
We want to see effective action taken in the short to medium term to improve traffic conditions in London and help tackle London's congestion problems. The provisions in Part II of the Bill, including the introduction and maintenance of a network of priority routes, are major initiatives which will achieve this. We are proposing that, subject to consultation, the priority route network will be based on the primary routes in London. These are existing main roads. They are the best routes for longer distance traffic in London. Although they comprise only 3 per cent. of London's road network, they carry over 25 per cent. of London's traffic and serve many important bus routes. Early action here, backed up by more effective action for enforcing parking controls, will be a starting point for widespread traffic improvements across London.
The Secretary of State will set the policy framework for the action on the priority routes and the action will be co-ordinated by the Traffic Director. There will be wide consultation over the policy framework and by the Traffic Director. He will have clearly defined objectives and a dedicated staff and will seek to work with the co-operation of the local authorities.
It is our intention to appoint the Traffic Director as soon as is reasonably practical after the Bill has received Royal Assent; and preliminary work is already in hand. The director will therefore be able to make any early start on the preparations for the fully operational priority route network. The results of research by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory into the early stages of the pilot scheme in north London have already shown the potential of such schemes. As my noble friend Lord Nugent reminded us, journey times over the route have reduced significantly. They have reduced by up to 30 per cent. between the peaks, and they are also now 40 per cent. more reliable. This is being achieved without the benefit of a coherent network, the new powers that will be available to traffic wardens, and the higher penalty levels that will apply to illegal parking on the priority routes proposed in the Bill.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Peyton will welcome the preliminary results. The Traffic Director will be able to address the timing of deliveries on the priority routes. However, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, we must be careful about night-time deliveries as they have anti-social consequences for residents.
I am pleased to announce today that the Government will be proposing that the penalty level for a parking infringement on a red route should be £40; that the penalty for parking infringements elsewhere in London should be £30; and that outside London the penalty should be £20. These proposals will soon be subject to consultation. This would mean that a motorist who parks illegally on a red line would be faced with a total charge of £125 if his car were to be subject to removal action by the police.
The fact is that the Government already have a comprehensive strategy for improving transport in London. Over the next three years London Transport plans to invest approaching £3 billion, supported by government grant of nearly £2.5 billion. That is an

1227
increase of 120 per cent. in real terms on the three years to April 1991. That is the best possible proof of our commitment to a bigger and better public transport system in London. We have a programme of nearly £2 billion over the next 10 years for selective improvements to London's trunk road network to get rid of the worst bottlenecks and accident blackspots. It is complemented by a further £1 billion of investment planned by the local authorities and the LDDC with government support. All those are far greater sums than were ever achieved under the Greater London Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also referred to investment in British Rail. He referred to the speech made not so long ago by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He also said that my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister had not been a supporter of British Rail. How come then that, under the present Government, investment in British Rail is higher than at any time over the past 30 years, including under the previous Labour Government? It is not because we do not support British Rail.
We are also supporting the necessary legislation, including Bills for new rail services such as the extension of the Jubilee Line to Docklands; the New Roads and Street Works Bill to get better quality street works which are properly co-ordinated; and this Bill which will pave the way for a network of priority routes on which traffic will be able to move more easily, reliably and safely.
Decisions on those issues, which involve massive public expenditure and major new legislation, have to be made at the highest level. Other decisions naturally fall to local highway authorities. However, frankly I find it hard to see the case for an intervening layer of bureaucracy as proposed in the amendment. I must therefore ask the House to reject it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, said it all in about two sentences. Where else in the world, in any major city and most particularly among our industrial competitors, is there no directly-elected democratic, strategic authority? That is the evidence for which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked. I love the noble trio over there. The noble trio always delight the House with their eloquence and power of debate and they can never be removed from their deep and unyielding prejudices; but they did not answer the question. They cannot answer it. The evidence for having a strategic authority on that basis is yielded by the fact that no country among the member states of the Community wants to imitate what we are doing in London. That is pretty powerful evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, implied that he prefers the 10 layers of incoherent and inconsistent bureaucracy with which the Government have beset London at present. That bureaucracy does not work. The evidence comes from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and from many others on both sides of the House. It is patently not working. I apologise to the noble Lord; I did not mean that. On the argument about political splits, we even have political splits in
1228
this place occasionally, and the whole functioning of a democracy depends on a political split. Sometimes both the hard Left and the hard Right do no service to the cause of democracy.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his support. If I were not grateful to him, I would have been tempted to say that in the first part of his remarks he adopted a holier-than-thou attitude; but as he is supporting me, such a thought would never occur to me.
I do not want to detain the House any further. We have gone over the issue very thoroughly. Different points of view have been expressed. The Government tend to rely upon an extraordinarily complacent attitude in relation to London's transport and the present system, but the Minister's comments about the changes that will be brought about in this death-bed repentance are a compelling indictment of what has happened over the past 12 years. However he may seek to dress up certain facts, the people of London know that London transport is in a state of terrible decline and that London is grinding to a halt. The Government must accept their share of responsibility for that.
When the Minister refers to the fact that the Greater London Council did not spend as much as it should have done, we should remember—the noble Lord has never denied this fact —that the Greater London Council was constrained in its expenditure plans and its plans for London's transport by this Government. Previous governments had been much more forthcoming, but things changed in 1982 and the noble Lord knows it. His Government have much responsibility to bear in terms of London's present decline. It is right that we should test the opinion of the House on this matter and that is what I now seek to do.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gregson, L.

Birk, B.

Grey, E.

Blackstone, B.

Hampton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hunt, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jacques, L.

Cross, V.

Jay, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ennals, L.

Listowel, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ezra, L.

Lockwood, B.

Foot, L.

Longford, E.

1229

McNair, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Seear, B.

Mayhew, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Serota, B.

Monkswell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stallard, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Peyton. L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Phillips, B.

Thurlow, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rea, L

Turner of Camden, B.

Richard, L.

Underhill, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

White, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rochester, L.

Willis, L.

Russell, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NON-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Holderness, L.

Astor, V.

Hood, V.

Attlee, E.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Howe, E.

Bauer, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Goding, L.

Bessborough, E.

Killearn, L.

Birdwood, L.

Knollys, L.

Blatch, B.

Louderdale, E.

Blyth, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lond, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashdern, L.

Brentford, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookes, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Butterworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Marlrsford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Montgomery of Alameib, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Morris, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mottistone, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson. E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Huildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dacre c f Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Prior, L.

DownsItire, M.

Quinton, L.

Elibank, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Erroll, E.

Todney, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Romney, E.

Faithfuil, B.

Selborne, E.

Flather. B.

Shannon, E.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Geddes, L.

Swansea, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, E.

Gridley. L.

Swinton, E.

Hailsha Tr of Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

1230

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Westbury, L.

Waddington, L.

Wise, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment
disagreed to accordingly.
5.2 p.m.
Clause 46 [The Secretary of State's traffic management guidance]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 41, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) In setting any objectives under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall take into account—
(a) the need to protect local businesses in London;
(b) the need to protect the environment;
(c) the need to promote road safety;
(e) the needs of cyclists, pedestrians and public transport; and
(f) the need not to encourage further car commuting into central London.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be brief. This amendment was discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill. The Government resisted it, saying that the consultation paper on Traffic in London had raised these issues and consequently there was no need to include the matters on the face of the Bill. That reply is unsatisfactory.
Clause 45 of the Bill sets out the primary objective of the priority route network as:
"improving the movement of traffic".
That objective was also stated in the consultation paper. If the Government are to be consistent, there is absolutely no need for that objective to be stated in the Bill. However, it is included and consequently, despite words to the contrary, it must indicate that that is an overriding objective in comparison with anything else. Because that one overriding objective is, in our judgment, an unsatisfactory one, it is appropriate to include these other matters in the amendment from paragraphs (a) to (f) on the face of the Bill. They set out an effective counterbalance so as to ensure that the other aspects of transport policy are not lost when directing the Traffic Director and deciding traffic management generally.
In Committee the Government agreed with the issues. The Minister went on to say that they would form part of the consideration in setting objectives. If that is the case, I can see no reason for the Government not to accept the amendment. I find it somewhat worrying that there are already indications that these other matters are going by default. In announcing that the red routes are a success, the Government made great play of the fact that some journey times have been reduced substantially. We heard that in the earlier debate. They have not admitted that the results also included increased speeding. Surely that would have a detrimental effect on road safety. There are already serious questions about that. Also, worse conditions have arisen for pedestrians and cyclists. That is not a matter just to be lost sight of.
There is some evidence to suggest that businesses have been materially affected. It is true that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the effects of the recession and the effects of the red routes. But

1231
if one visits those areas and speaks about these routes to the people who run businesses there, one immediately finds great disquiet.
The Government are very keen on market forces so it is surprising that they have refused to admit the law of supply and demand in road space: if a road journey is made more attractive by speeding up traffic, demand will also increase. One creates a vicious circle. There is also a pollution risk from the additional traffic.
It is essential that the Minister makes clear statements about objectives other than the objective of improving the movement of traffic. We believe that for that reason those objectives should be set out on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, we must remember that the House is trying to pass a law. By definition a law is something which has to be enforced in the courts. It is very difficult to imagine anything less enforceable than any one—or altogether all —of these paragraphs (a) to (f) in the proposed amendment.
I do not know how the courts would approach the Secretary of State. I suppose that they might want a judicial review under the rules of the Supreme Court Order 53. They would say that in this case he has not taken account of the need to promote road safety or that he has not considered the need to protect local businesses in London. The Secretary of State would then swear an affidavit saying that he had taken carefully into account all six items and had drawn a careful balance to the best of his conscientious ability. That would be the end of the matter and there would be no judicial review.
The proposal is basically a nonsense. It is the result of wanting to put on the face of statute anything which any decent democratic Minister would take into account. The only people who would able to hold him to account if he did not achieve a proper balance would be the electorate. I think that this is a perfectly vacuous amendment which ought firmly to be rejected.
Before I sit down, I shall add a further sentence. It always sends a shiver down my spine when I hear the proposer of an amendment say that it ought to be put on the face of the Bill. I see that there are two occupants of the Liberal Benches. In 1911 Parliament passed 450 pages of public general statutes.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord acknowledge that it was before our time?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it certainly was not before my time. I was going strong at the age of four. However, the Government were not that bad and had a reputation for getting things done, although they were sometimes contentious matters. They passed 450 pages of statutes, which was about average for that reforming Government. Governments of both parties who have been in power since the war have produced a steady annual average rising to 3,000 pages of public general legislation. My view is that there ought to be fewer Acts with less in them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask him to consider Clause 68(12) which sets out from paragraphs (a) to (p) the regulations which provide for a variety of matters—far more than those set out in the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I shall consider the detail of Clause 68 when we come to it. The fact that I do not want this amendment does not necessarily mean that I shall enthuse about a clause of that length.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his introduction to the amendment, and I appreciate that he has addressed the point made during Committee that the appropriate place to discuss policy aims such as those covered in his amendment is in the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance.
However, I remain of the view that it would be inappropriate to try and list, on the face of the Bill, all the issues which should be discussed in that document. I do not believe that a list prepared at this stage would be exhaustive. The noble Lord's list does not, for example, include references to ways of reducing congestion or to the interests of residents, which we have said should be taken fully into account. Moreover, within any list there will be many conflicting priorities, and balances will have to be struck. The amendment therefore, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, would open up opportunities for unproductive debate on the relative weight given to one aspect or another, with no one likely to benefit as a result.
Nevertheless, I am happy to repeat the assurance I gave in Committee that the Secretary of State's new traffic management guidance will discuss all the issues listed in the noble Lord's amendment.
We have also stated publicly in our consultation document that the aim of the priority route network will include the improvement of the movement of all traffic so that people and goods can reach their destinations more easily, reliably and safely. We have also said that we do not intend to make life impossible for people living or conducting business on priority routes.
With reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, I refer to another result of the survey of the trial red route; namely, with regard to businesses. The number of callers at businesses varied from that previously measured along that part of the pilot scheme. Callers had increased at about 60 per cent, of the businesses monitored. However, for 20 per cent. the number of callers had gone down by more than 10 per cent. on week days. The evidence is not as clear-cut as the noble Lord would have us believe.
Exceptionally, government amendments, including one to this clause, have been tabled to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the needs of people with a disability will be taken fully into account. I do not believe that there there can be any doubt about our intentions.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that the issues he raises will indeed be discussed in the

1233
Secretary of State's new traffic management guidance and that in view of that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Loyd Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, were carefully to consider the Bill, he will find in virtually every clause objectives of the kind to which he has taken exception. The Bill is replete with them. I should therefore have expected him to have taken some draconian action before he descended on my little amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as Samuel Johnson said, "Stark insensibility, sir".,
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has repeated his assurances. I am sure that they are given in good faith. I see significant inconsistency in the argument that he adduces. However, we must leave it at that and hope that the Government will not place one of these objectives that the noble Lord has set out above all the others. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 41, line 41, after ("Commissioners;") insert:
("( ) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 to 28, 30, 33 34, 37 to 39, and 85. During the debate at Committee stage on 7th May, in responding to amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Swinfen seeking to safeguard the interests of disabled people in relation to the priority routes and the Secretary of State's new parking guidance, I repeated that the Government have a long-standing commitment to promote the improvement of transport facilities and opportunities for disabled people. I also said that we attach particular importance to their interests being reflected in transport developments; and that given those commitments, it would follow automatically that the Secretary of State's traffic management and parking guidance would address the interests of disabled people.
I also recognised the considerable support in your Lordships' House for the principle of the amendments; I agreed to give them careful consideration and to return to the issue. I am now pleased to introduce government amendments which address your Lordships' anxiety. In doing so, I should say that I have been persuaded by the argument that in this case people with disabilities are in a unique position. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, many disabled people are unable to walk at all, and those who can walk can often walk only a limited distance and often are totally unable to use public transport.
Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 38 and 39 require the Secretary of State, when preparing his traffic management guidance under Clause 46, and his parking guidance under Clause 58, to have regard to the needs of people with a disability. This phrase goes slightly wider than the amendments moved by my noble fiend in Committee. But it is consistent with the
1234
amendments that have been made to the New Roads and Street Works Bill, and the principle is unchanged. The amendments also require the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to be consulted in the process. This is consistent with the existing provision for consultation with bodies with statutory transport responsibilities.
Amendment No. 26 requires the Traffic Director to have regard to the needs of people with a disability when preparing his network plan for the priority routes. And Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 30, 33, 34 and 37 require the London authorities, the Traffic Director and the Secretary of State, when preparing local plans for priority routes, to indicate the measures they propose to take in relation to the needs of people with a disability after consulting such organisations as appear to them to represent the interests of people with a disability covered by the plan. Amendment No. 85 is a consequential amendment including a definition of disability. That is a standard definition.
The amendments are therefore more comprehensive than those moved by my noble friend Lord Swinfen in Committee. They do not, however, include a specific requirement for the Traffic Director to approve a local authority's local plan only if it provides adequate safeguards for disabled people. This is the subject of a further amendment by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. The requirement is not included in the government amendments because we believe that it will follow automatically from our other amendments made in relation to disabled people. We also believe it would be invidious to single out for special reference one of the many issues on which the Traffic Director must he satisfied.
I trust that our amendments will meet with the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank my noble friend not only for taking on board what was said by me and other noble Lords in Committee but also for his courtesy in seeing me and my adviser on the matter and for bringing forward these amendments which I heartily approve and strongly support.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may add brief but heartfelt thanks for the amendments. The Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People also welcomes them enormously. In particular I welcome those provisions on consulting the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and organisations which represent the interests of people with disability.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I endorse and repeat the grateful thanks to the Minister for introducing the amendments.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. Amendment No. 26 on Clause 48 refers to "the needs of people with a disability". However, there is no reference to consultation with the disablement committee or with representatives of people with disabilities. Is there a special reason for that? I note that in Clause 48 the same list of statutory bodies is

1235
mentioned for consultation. For some reason there is no reference to consultation with disablement bodies or representatives of disabled people, although that is the case in respect of every other clause to which the Minister has referred. Is there a special reason for that?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it would be churlish if from these Benches I did not give wholehearted support to the amendment, and I do so. I have nothing to add to what has been said.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of thanks to the Government for having tabled the amendments. I cannot reply precisely to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but I believe that the consultation would already have taken place. I now understand clearly the point that he made. The issue is covered by consultation on traffic management guidance, which will have taken place in the order of events.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 41, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In preparing any such guidance, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the needs of people with a disability.").
On Question, amendment agreed to
Clause 48 [The Director's network plan]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 42, line 37, at end insert ("and to the needs of people with a disability").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Duty of London authorities to prepare local plans]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 44, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) indicate how the proposals referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) relate, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability;").
Page 44, line 38, after ("Transport;") insert:
("( ) such organisations representing the interests of people with a disability who may be affected by the plan as appear to the authority to be appropriate;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 45, line 6, at end insert:
("(e) with the traffic management measures that have been taken to safeguard the interests of people with a disability;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, notwithstanding what I said when my noble friend moved Amendment No. 24, I still believe that Amendment No. 29 will improve the Bill. It will ensure that the traffic director has responsibility for ensuring that the needs of disabled people have been met. It adds strength to the Government's amendments, proposing a general duty to have regard to the needs of disabled people by giving specific responsibility to one person to ensure that that is carried out. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the amendment. There is a distinction between what was
1236
said in an earlier debate and the point now raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I hope that the Minister will reply constructively.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment. The disability organisations also believe that it is a necessary and complementary amendment to the Minister's amendments, which have been accepted.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the amendment. I regret that I am unable to accept it but I hope he and the House will be able to accept my reasons for not doing so.
My first reason is that the amendment is not needed. Clause 49(10) provides that the Traffic Director shall not approve a London authority's local plan unless he is satisfied that it is consistent with the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance and his own network plan. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26, to which the House has just agreed, provide a requirement on the face of the Bill that in preparing the traffic management guidance and the network plan the Secretary of State and the Traffic Director respectively shall have regard to the needs of people with a disability. Amendment No. 27 requires the local authorities' local plans to indicate the measures that they propose to take to ensure that those needs are met. It will therefore follow automatically that the Traffic Director will be unable to approve the local plans unless he is satisfied with the measures to be taken.
My second reason is that, although there will be no explicit reference on the face of the Bill, there will, as I have undertaken, be a whole range of issues which the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance will need to address. Some of the issues have been referred to in Amendment No. 23 moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. They include the need to promote road safety, to protect the environment and the needs of local business and to provide for the needs of buses, cyclists and pedestrians. I also referred to the need to take account of the interests of local residents.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Swinfen and his supporters can accept that these are important issues. They will affect the health, safety and livelihoods of whole communities of people in this city and are not to be taken lightly. While we may have different approaches on how to improve traffic conditions and deal with congestion in London, I believe that both the Government and the Opposition are agreed on this point. So in this instance I do not believe that there is a case for a special reference to the needs of people with a disability.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), on the way they have pursued the interests of disabled people in connection with this part of the Bill. They have pursued their case eloquently and forcefully. The Government have been pleased to respond where that case has been argued logically and justifiably. But in

1237
the present instance I hope that my noble friend will accep: the logic of the Government's argument and withdraw this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend was most flattering; I do not believe that his praise is deserved. I do not intend to press the matter this evening. I am not entirely satisfied with his response, although it was not completely unexpected. I shall look at the matter again with my advisers in the light of what he said. I may return to the fray on Third Reading, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [The Director's trunk road local plans]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 45, line 37, after ("apply;") insert:
("( ) such organisations representing the interests of people with a disability who may be affected by the plan as appear to him to be appropriate;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 45, line 37, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 35 and 36. They relate to consultation on the Minister's and director's trunk road local plans. As the Bill stands, the plans will be drawn up in great detail for the sections of priority routes hat are on trunk roads. Despite the provisions for the local authority to draw up the plans, the Minister made it clear in Committee that in the main the director will be responsible for the detailed plans on trunk roads. He will be subject to formal consultation only with the local authority, the police and London Regional Transport. That is despite the fact that there will be a major impact on different types of road users such as delivery vehicles and cyclists.
In rejecting the amendments in Committee the Government used three arguments. They said, first, that it is for the local authorities to consult; secondly, that individuals would retain their statutory consultation when draft orders were made; and, thirdly, that the director or the Minister, as the case may be, will not ignore comments made by the public. It will be noted that the amendments are different from those printed on the original Marshalled List because the Government have introduced Amendments Nos. 30 and 34, which provide for consultation with representatives of disabled people and which have been spoken to.
The Government's arguments on those three points are inadequate. In general, it is not reasonable for the local authorities to be responsible for public consultation on someone else's proposals. They cannot explain the proposals properly, or the reasoning behind them. In many cases they will not know the reasoning. They could tell the public, "We don't like this element of the plan but we don't know why the director or the Minister has included it". In fact, the London Cycling Campaign, to which we referred in Committee, which represents the Cycling Tourists Club and the Cycle Campaign Network has said:
1238
"We find that it is unacceptable to expect local authorities to have adequate resources to consult the public over decisions taken by a Minister or Director who is not directly or electorally responsible for the affected area".
It is really saying that one cannot expect the public to express views on something which, without consultation, no details are available.
We find also a situation in which there is no provision for consultation with bodies such as the Freight Transport Association, which is keenly interested in the problem of deliveries. In any case, the trunk road schemes can move from one borough to another. A local authority cannot be expected to pass on comments on a particular proposal for a trunk road scheme which covers another borough which may be many miles away. It is not satisfactory to rely on objections at the draft traffic management order stage to safeguard public rights. By that stage the plan will be very difficult to alter and it is hard to envisage what could be a sustainable objection.
Also, it is hardly reasonable for the Government to claim that consultation takes place on the basis that they do not turn away volunteered responses. That is what the Government said in Committee. Unless the director or the Minister makes information available freely and encourages responses, how will the organisations representing road users know of the proposals?
We ask that Clauses 50 and 51 provide that the consultations should include:
"such organisations of road users as he thinks fit";
that is, the Minister or Traffic Director as the case may be. There can be no reason for the Government not accepting this amendment. Surely they want consultations with road users. There should be proper provision in the Bill for that. The words "as he thinks fit" leave the matter open for the Minister or director to make the decision on that matter. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. I am particularly concerned about the needs of cyclists. At earlier stages of the Bill we agreed that cycling is an environmentally friendly method of transport and should be encouraged. It is also the most vulnerable. It is essential that the needs of cyclists should be understood. That requires specific consultation on new route proposals.
Probably all Ministers travel by car in London so that they can observe and relate first hand to the needs of the motor car. However, I suspect that none of them cycles although I should be delighted to learn otherwise. Perhaps the Minister will have a confession to make. However, does the Minister recall a letter from no less a person than the Minister for Aviation in his Department in March of this year to the Cycle Campaign Network—and I was impressed to hear that cyclists fall into that category? It stated:
"I can confirm that the needs of cyclists will be considered in the development of the priority route network".
How can their needs be known, let alone considered, without consultation? This modest amendment allows at least for possibility of consultation and I support it.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I add to the voice of cyclists as a frequent and practising cyclist. I should

1239
like to address the problem when a particular local authority is unsympathetic towards cycling. My own local authority of Kensington and Chelsea, which has a good record in most other spheres, is known to be almost antagonistic towards cyclists. It is very dispiriting for cyclists to make representations to be passed on to higher authorities—Ministers and directors—when the cyclists know that there is little chance that their feelings will be conveyed. For the reasons so eloquently given by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I urge the Minister seriously to consider this amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his introduction to these amendments. As I have said, I believe that statutory consultation in relation to the implementation of priority routes should be limited to bodies which have a statutory role in the operation of London's roads and transport systems. We believe that consultation with road user organisations would be more appropriate on an informal basis. At a local level it will normally be more appropriate for consultations to be undertaken by the local authorities. They will be in a better position to undertake this consultation than the Secretary of State or the Traffic Director. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Traffic Director would be able to establish and maintain an up-to-date list of local groups in the same manner as the local authorities, so they will look to those authorities for assistance when preparing their local plans. They will be mindful that the quality of their plans will be raised and the practical problems of implementation reduced by wider consultation with road user groups, including cyclists, which will be encouraged by the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord referred to cyclists. I must admit that in London I always travel by car because it is rather difficult to carry a red box on the back of a bicycle even if that were allowed. Outside London I cycle and in London I have a chance to observe the behaviour of cyclists. Sometimes that is rather horrifying although I do not wish to generalise on that. I must admit that I do not recall the letter which evidently I sent to the organisation to which the noble Baroness referred. However, as I said, there will be an opportunity for consultation. We believe that that should be carried out through the local authorities which best know the views of their user groups. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's reply although I understand what he is endeavouring to say. However, there are flaws in the argument. It is suggested that this matter is best left to local authorities. Perhaps I may give an example. A trunk road local plan affects the borough of Redbridge but I live in the borough of Waltham Forest, which is some miles away. How do I make representations as regards matters which affect the whole route? Most cyclists cover more than one local
1240
authority area in their journeys. The difficulty is how best to devise a scheme so that their views are considered.
The Minister suggests that informal consultations are better. The Freight Transport Association is vitally concerned with deliveries to stores and other buildings throughout the whole London area. There will be various trunk road local plans. As a proper road user body, provision should be made for the Freight Transport Association to be consulted. The Minister suggests that consultation is far better on an informal basis. If that is so, why are certain bodies listed in clauses in the Bill for statutory consultation? The Minister will not include provision for representatives of road users to be consulted "as he thinks fit". It seems to me that that is a simple request but the Minister seems adamant. I register my objection to the Minister's refusal to do something more than have informal consultations and I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 46, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) indicate how the proposals referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) relate, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [The Minister's trunk road local plans]:
The Lord Brabazon of Tara The Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 47, line 2, after ("Commissioners;") insert:
("( ) such organisations representing the interests of people with a disability who may be affected by the plan as appear to him to be appropriate;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 47, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) indicate how the proposals referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) relate, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [The Secretary of State's parking guidance]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
Page 52, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee;").
Page 53, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) In connection with the preparation of the Secretary of State's parking guidance regard shall be had to the needs of people with a disability.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 with Amendment No. 24. With the leave of the House, I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61 [Parking penalties in London]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 54, line 13, at end insert:
("(2A) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (2) (a) (ii) and paragraph (2) (b) above, no penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle, if a current disable d person's badge is displayed on the vehicle and the vehicle at the time at which it was parked was being used or was to he used by the person to whom that disabled person's badge was issued.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment tabled at Committee stage, but I believe that it is worth bringing forward again. It is designed to allow orange badge holders to park in meter bays without charge for a limitless length of time in all parts of London. The facility presently exists in all areas of London except Kensington and Chelsea, the Cities of London and Westminster and parts of Camden.
The orange badge is recognised throughout the whole of the European Community and the exclusion of its powers in the centre of London makes it impossible for most disabled people to use those facilities. In his reply to the amendment moved during Committee stage, the Minister said that he did not wish to bypass the discussions being held with local authorities. I sometimes wonder whether local authorities should have greater powers than Parliament. We are often given the impression that the Minister is being directed by others above him to allow that to happen. I, for one, am disappointed.
I perhaps did not make clear at Committee stage that the amendment only affects meter bays. It does not in any way affect yellow lines. It allows only disabled people to park in meter bays for a limitless length of time. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made the case clearly. I wish to emphasise that it refers purely to meter bays. The rest of Great Britain and the EC recognise the orange badge. At Committee stage we referred to the hopes that the proposed changes would limit abuse and perceived abuse and encourage the three-and-a-half London boroughs that do not recognise the scheme at the moment to fully implement it.
I hope also that it will help to resolve the question in regard to some towns issuing their own badges. I spoke of that in Committee on 9th May (at col. 1219 of Hansard) and of how my own neighbouring town has issued a blue badge. Holders are allowed to park on pedestrian areas whereas orange badge holders may only park in adjacent side streets. The criteria for issuing the blue badge are bizarre. One is eligible if one has difliculty in walking 50 yards. On the other hand, if one cannot walk at all one is not eligible. That only serves to decrease the value of the orange badge and increase, public cynicism.
Until the proposed new passport schemes are implemented we will find more and more towns issuing their own badges. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, changes are long overdue. They were the subject of wide consultation in August 1986. The Minister will remember that clearly because he was
1242
deeply involved in those consultations. There were further wide consultations, and draft regulations incorporating the changes were circulated in April 1990. In Committee the Minister said that he could not give us any indication of when the changes would be introduced. If he is still unable to give us that indication, perhaps he will try to obtain the information by Third Reading.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, this discussion returns to a matter debated at some length at Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or agree to come back with an amendment of his own. Perhaps he can assure the House that the negotiations taking place with these recalcitrant London boroughs have come to some positive conclusion or are about to do so.
It is a scandal that these boroughs can hold out against the rest of Europe. Now is the obvious opportunity to do something about it. If we allow it to pass, we shall not be forgiven. I hope the Minister will either reassure us that there is some movement taking place, accept the amendment, or offer something similar.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we on these Benches support what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and ask the Minister to follow the suggested courses. However, I should like to make three points in supporting the amendment.
First, it does not permit parking on yellow lines. That should be emphasised because it is a problem some people feel may arise. Secondly, disabled people move around London from one borough to another and should therefore have the parking facility wherever they are travelling and for whatever reason they are travelling. Thirdly, in resisting the amendment in the other place Mr. Chope said that there was opportunity for abuse. We have already agreed amendments that will lessen the abuse of the yellow badge scheme and therefore I see no reason why the Government cannot either accept the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, or agree to bring forward one of their own at the next stage. That would be heartily approved of by the whole House.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we discussed this important issue in Committee when my noble friend Lord Swinfen explained the difficulties faced by disabled people from outside central London when coming to the area on business, to shop or for other purposes. The reason is that the Cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the area of the Borough of Camden south of and including the Euston Road are exempt from the orange badge scheme. I very much understand and sympathise with the problems of disabled people needing to visit this part of London. But the fact is, as I said previously, that those areas have particular traffic and congestion problems and very great pressure on parking space indeed.

1243
At present the authorities concerned operate their own concessionary schemes for people with disabilities living and working in their areas. They are mindful of the needs of disabled people. And they accept that the present situation is less than ideal. Indeed, they seek to make limited extra provision where they can, as I understand the City of London is currently proposing. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that there is some movement in the right direction. But the pressures in their areas are such that they do not believe that they could, in practical terms, at present operate the orange badge scheme.
As the House will know, and as our debates have shown, widespread abuse of the current orange badge scheme is a national problem. But it particularly exacerbates the special problems which the Inner London boroughs would face in implementing the scheme. The House will also know that we are working up a package of proposals to improve the orange badge scheme, including the introduction of the passport-style badge which has been discussed in previous debates on the Bill. The authorities concerned indicated their willingness to make progress by discussing with the department the possibility of implementing part, at least, of the orange badge scheme once the new system, which should be less open to abuse, is in place.
I remind your Lordships once more that that will not require primary legislation. We are not therefore throwing away the opportunity if the amendment is not included in the Bill. The issue of penalty charges at meter bays, the subject of this amendment, is very much in the minds of the authorities here. I believe that this demonstrates the concern of the authorities so as far as possible to meet the needs of people with disabilities. I can assure noble Lords that once a package of changes to the orange badge is agreed the department will lose no time in re-opening discussions with the authorities on the issue.
I regret that I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) , any more information as to the likely timing but I hope that it will not be too far away now. I am sure that my noble friend and the noble Baroness will accept that, in view of the particular problems of central London under the present scheme and of the prospects for change, it would not be reasonable to compel the authorities at this stage.
I also say to the noble Baroness that I shall be happy to consider what happens in local authority areas outside London which issue their own badge. I am reluctant to discourage authorities to go further than the orange badge scheme. Obviously I cannot comment without details. Although the matter is not relevant to the Bill, if the noble Baroness will let me have details I shall look into the matter.
I regret that I feel unable to accept the amendment. Having heard the explanation that I have given, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wonder what would happen if boroughs throughout the country were to discriminate against disabled people from the inner London boroughs in the same way as they
1244
discriminate against other disabled people and to issue instructions to their traffic wardens not to allow them to overstay the normal time at parking meters? Quite honestly, I feel that they would be justified in doing that because at the moment disabled people are being discriminated against for not living in central London.
I find the Minister's response extremely disappointing. He said that things are being done, but he gave no indication of when. It is all promises, promises but no action. I do not believe that this afternoon would be an appropriate time to press this to a Division. I shall read what my noble friend has said. I feel certain that I shall return to the matter at Third Reading and at that stage it is likely that I shall take it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of vehicles displaying disabled person's badge
.—(1) Notwithstanding the general powers to remove a vehicle in pursuance of an order to which section 101 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988 applies, or of regulations under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988 apply, those powers shall not extend to permit a vehicle displaying a current disabled person's badge to be removed unless—
(a) the vehicle was on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to cause obstruction to other persons using the road or as to be likely to cause danger to such persons, or
(b) at the time the vehicle was being parked the vehicle was not being used or was not to be used by the disabled person to whom that badge was issued.
(2) In the case of the removal of a vehicle under subsection (1) (a) above, the removal shall be in accord with provisions set down by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not the same amendment on the subject as the one I moved in Committee. It is a new amendment. It is again designed to prevent orange badge holders having their cars towed away if it is said that they are parked illegally unless the car is a hazard or dangerously obstructing the road. The amendment is drafted in such a way as to provide a code of practice on the removal of cars. The present restricted parking facilities for disabled people mean that sometimes they have no choice but to park in prohibited places, particularly in central London.
sI should like to see statutory backing given to guidelines. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment, bearing in mind that for a disabled person to have his car removed is a much greater punishment, if that is the right word, than for an able-bodied person. At Committee stage I pointed out the difficulties that a disabled person has in going to get his vehicle. I realise that the police are probably instructed to remove the car not to a pound but to a safer position close by, but one cannot always see the position. A disabled person, like any other person, may panic and think that his or her car has been stolen.
I do not know, but I have a feeling that more and more car removal is being handed over to private contractors and I suspect that payment may be by results. In that case more and more cars will be removed and a greater number of cars driven by disabled people will be removed. I wonder whether my

1245
noble friend will comment on that when he responds. I know that in theory (and probably in practice) there is always a policeman in attendance. But I suspect that the youngest and most inexperienced police officers are given those rather boring and routine jobs. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment so thoughtfully and clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. In effect it virtually establishes on the face of the Bill the current practice in accordance with police guidelines but it shifts the balance slightly to put disabled people in a more secure position.
I understand that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Chope, in an interview on the radio on Tuesday, said that in future towing away may well be supervised by employees of the local authority rather than the police. I wonder whether the Minister can say more about that. Does he agree that police guidance is not much use if they are not actually involved in the operation? Does he agree that guidance will be needed for whoever is responsible for towing away? Therefore, does he not agree that it is essential to have something about that on the face of the Bill?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speeches made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and by the noble Baroness. This new clause is similar to one proposed in an amendment at Committee stage. I am very much aware of the particular difficulties faced by a disabled person whose vehicle is removed. As I said at an earlier stage, I therefore well understand why the amendment has been tabled. 1 note too that in the amendment before us there is no longer a reference to a code of practice dealing with the removal of disabled persons' vehicles and the matters that that might cover. I know that my noble friend appreciates the practical difficulties of notifying a badge holder about the details of removal. I have to say, however, that I still do not believe that a statutory prohibition on removal, even with the safeguards suggested by him, can preserve the operational flexibility which in the last analysis the police may need.
I have provided my noble friend with a copy of the relevant part of the Metropolitan Police guidelines on the removal of vehicles which are displaying an orange badge. I believe that anyone would say that they are clear and to the point. They cover the matters which concern my noble friend and the noble Baroness both as to the circumstances in which vehicles may be removes and how they should then be dealt with. There is no question of guidelines being ignored. Indeed, I believe that police officers, and even junior police officers, will be more familiar with, hence less likely to disregard unintentionally, matters which are covered in operational guidelines. Nevertheless, it is not possible to foresee every eventuality. It would be particularly difficult to allow in the Bill for every circumstance in which it might be necessary to remove a vehicle. As l said previously, we are by no means talking entirely of circumstances determined by traffic
1246
and parking considerations. The House will understand that there may be other considerations such as those of security. The danger of a statutory provision is that it would place an absolute restriction on the operational flexibility essential for the police in such matters.
I assure my noble friend and the House that the police are sensitive to the needs of disabled people. I believe that the guidelines that I have described are evidence of that. I am also not aware of any problems in practice. Indeed, I understand that removal of orange badge holders' vehicles is very rare. I do not deny that there may be occasional instances where a vehicle is removed in error, but I suspect statutory provision would make little difference in such rare cases. There is no reason to suppose that it would make any difference. I am also aware—as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) pointed out—that the extension of wheel clamping and removal powers to local authorities will need to be the subject of guidance to ensure that they also take full account of the needs of disabled people. I can assure the noble Baroness that such guidance will be given to local authorities when they assume these powers in their areas.
Overall, I am sure that the most effective way to tackle the issue is through specific guidance which is sensitive to the needs of disabled people and is issued to those who are directly involved. I do not believe that amendment to the Bill would provide material improvement for disabled people. It would take from the police a flexibility which, while rarely used, may occasionally be vital.
We shall of course want to be kept in touch if problems develop. That is an area where, if the need were proven and practical problems could be overcome, it would be possible to act in regulations. However, I believe that guidance rather than statutory provision is the right answer. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw this amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before I decide what to do with the amendment, I have a few questions to ask.
My noble friend acknowledged the fact that what the noble Baroness said was correct; namely, that more and more local authorities will be responsible for removing illegally-parked vehicles. However, can he confirm that there will be a greater number of private contractors being asked to do so? Further, at the same time, can he tell the House whether the guidelines as laid down by the police at present will form part of the contract agreed between the police or the local authority and the removal contractors?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that a great part of the Bill is involved in handing over control of parking to the local authorities. That fact has been welcomed on all sides of the House. I cannot now say which local authorities will choose to use private contractors for the task and which may choose to use their own employees. I do not know how many will do which;

1247
but I can assure my noble friend that whoever undertakes the task, whether it be the local authority or a contractor, they will be given similar guidelines to those which are given to the police at present in order to ensure that there will be no problem on that score.
So far as concerns this being a matter to be included in the contract, I can say that the guidelines for police contractors will be such that they will not be allowed to do anything that the police or local authorities cannot do. Therefore, they will be bound by that.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall take the amendment away and read very carefully in Hansard what the Minister said. He said quite a lot; but I am not entirely clear in my own mind as to whether he has satisfied me. Therefore, I should like to reserve my right to return to the matter on Third Reading if necessary. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Clause 63 [Charges for removal, storage and disposal of vehicles]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 56, line 4, leave out ("as that authority") and insert ("or otherwise provided or controlled by that authority as they").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 109.
In Committee we debated a series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, which sought to decriminalise offences at off-street parking places controlled by London authorities, and at loading areas.
My noble friend Lord Cavendish explained why the Government believed that the case for these changes was neither proven nor urgent, and that changes could be implemented in due course through the new provisions for,
"special parking areas in London".
Nevertheless, he noted the noble Lord's illustration of a foreign registered car parked illegally in a Richmond Borough Council car park and undertook to reconsider the principle of his amendment again, without commitment. We have reconsidered this principle, but we are not persuaded of the case for change. A decision to change at this stage would be rushed and would involve some highly complex drafting. That would be undesirable. There are also alternative methods of enforcing parking controls at local authority car parks; for example, physical controls so that motorists cannot leave without paying the appropriate charge.
However, we are persuaded of the case for providing the London authorities with a power to charge for removing vehicles which have parked illegally in off-street local authority car parks. This power is available to local authorities outside London and it is, I admit, an anomaly that it is not available to the London authorities.
The amendments amend the new Section 102(2) (d) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which is provided for in Clause 63 of the Bill and which enables
1248
a London authority to recover the costs of removing vehicles which have parked illegally at on-street parking places. The amended Section 102(2) (d) of the 1984 Act will now also cover off-street parking places provided by the London authorities. The amendments also make consequential changes to the 1984 Act to enable local authorities to charge for removing illegally-parked vehicles in any off-street parking place provided or controlled by a London authority under letting or other arrangements made under Section 33(4) of the Act. I hope that the House will find these amendments helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking these matters seriously, and for the changes which he has made by way of these amendments. As always, they do not go as far as one would wish. However, I believe that they cover the basic problem. I am sure that the London Boroughs Association, and others, will be pleased with the amendments which have been put forward by the Government. I am most grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 56, line 14, after ("is" ") insert:
("(aa) in that definition, the words following paragraph (b) shall be omitted;").
Page 56, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(9) For the purposes of—
(a) subsection (2) (d) above, and
(b) paragraph (b) in the definition of "appropriate authority" in subsection (8) above,
a parking place provided under a letting or arrangements made by a local authority in pursuance of section 33(4) of this Act shall be treated as provided by that authority." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Immobilisation of vehicles in parking places]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 56, line 34, leave out ("parking attendant") and insert ("person authorised by the relevant authority to give such a direction.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 89. These amendments are designed to introduce a greater element of flexibility into the procedures for releasing vehicles from wheel clamps.
At present, Clause 64(3) provides that a vehicle which has been wheel clamped because it has contravened the controls at a designated parking place in London may only be released from the wheel clamp by or under the direction of a parking attendant. The practical effect is that at the very least a uniformed parking attendant will have to be present at each payment office where the release is authorised once payment has been made. That would be wasteful of resources which could be better employed elsewhere. Amendment No. 46 will therefore enable the London authority to authorise a person to give such a direction. For example, the authority could authorise the clerk at the payment office to give a direction for

1249
a release as soon as payment is made. That will improve the efficiency of the new system for enforcing permitted parking controls without disadvantaging drivers and owners.
Amendment No. 89 provides for similar flexibility over the authority to release vehicles from wheel clamps which have been fixed, by the police or traffic wardens, because of contraventions of controls over illegal parking. It amends Section 104(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 so that vehicles may be released from wheel clamps when a direction is given by a person who is authorised to do so by the chief officer of police in whose area the vehicle in question was found. That will avoid the need for a police officer or traffic warden to be present, or in an office, to authorise the release. I believe that these amendments will he welcomed both by motorists and by local authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Exemptions from section 64]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 49:
Page 57, line 23, leave out from ("(a)") to ("of') in line 24 and insert ("in accordance with regulations under section 21").
Page 57, line 25, leave out ("(institutional use)").
Page 57, line 26, leave out ("117(2) (b)") and insert ("117(1) (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 10. With the leave of the House, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 68 [Appointment of parking adjudicators by joint committee of the London authorities]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 60, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the proposed process for managing parking adjudicators and setting parking charges as set out in the Bill is grossly over-complicated. I drew the attention of the House to that at Second Reading. In particular, the intention to set up a new committee of all the boroughs is a duplication of effort at a cross-London level. Indeed, in the first amendment this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out that this was yet a further stage of bureaucracy in the management of traffic in London.
The process for setting parking charges as proposed in the Bill may detract from the ability of local authorities to set charges at an appropriate level and to bring the charges into force quickly enough to respond to change in local circumstances. Local authorities should be empowered to set all the parking charges, as the local authorities themselves are in the best po6tion to assess the relative demand for parking space and the need for deterrence within their own areas. I have mentioned previously that there are very many widely differing charges, even within one borough, according to demand.
The old theory still holds good that charges should be set al a rate that encourages people not to stay too long. Meters are not designed for long-term parking;
1250
that is for offstreet parking. Charges should be set at a level where people use the space for a brief time and move on. I noticed in the City of London yesterday that many meters were available; the charge was £2 an hour. That meant that people who were just delivering documents or making a brief call at an office had no difficulty at all in parking in the City of London yesterday. Long-term parking is prohibitively expensive, and time is limited.
The boroughs have already demonstrated that they can set charges and tariffs which do not result in wide variations across borough boundaries. That system is already working. While there is a role for central guidance and co-ordination between authorities, this should be limited to broader matters of principle. The proposed procedures will in any case require Department of Transport officials to scrutinise all the charges after they have been through the joint committee. Therefore, there will only be a marginal increase in the role of the Department of Transport as the boroughs submit the charges directly to it. Why have two layers, when one will do?
I have set out three options in this series of amendments. I shall go through them separately and then explain the difference. The first option, which is covered by Amendments Nos. 52, 67 to 70 and 72 to 81, represents the least change to the Bill. Under these amendments the proposed new joint committee would be retained for the purposes of the appointment and overseeing of parking adjudicators. However, proposed parking charges would be submitted directly to the Secretary of State by the individual boroughs. This option would therefore reduce the role of the proposed new joint committee, cut down the possibility of the committee expanding its deliberations to cover an ever-widening range of topics, remove an unnecessary and possibly delaying tier of decision-making, and allow each borough to get on with the administration of parking in its own area. That is not my favourite of the three options.
The second option is the one that 1 personally favour. That would require the acceptance of Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 53, 55, 57 to 59, 61, 63, 65, 67 to 70 and 72 to 81. It removes the need to set up a new joint committee. The appointment and overseeing of parking adjudicators would be passed to LPAC, an existing committee which has representation from all the boroughs; it already exists. Proposed parking charges would be submitted directly to the Secretary of State by the individual boroughs, as in the first option.
The third option, which would require the acceptance of Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 54, 56 to 59, 62, 64, 66, 67 to 70 and 72 to 81 would also remove the need for a new joint committee. Under the amendments both the appointment and overseeing of parking adjudicators would be passed directly to the boroughs, although the boroughs would retain the right to set up their own joint arrangements for starting up and running the adjudication responsibilities set out in the Bill. As with the other two options, the proposed parking charges would also be submitted directly to the Secretary of State by the individual boroughs in accordance with parking guidance.
I do not intend to go round in circles on the question of the whole parking procedure and the requirement to set up a whole new body, which would clearly have to have an establishment and staff and borough members appointed from every borough. Most borough councils are already hard pressed to find enough people to appoint to such committees. I made out my case at Second Reading. I have put forward three options. I hope that the Minister will comment on which he views more favourably. I would choose the second group of amendments which would do away with the setting up of the new committee and would use LPAC which is already available to study these matters. The committee already exists and I believe that it would do the job very accurately. The amount of extra work involved for the Department of Transport would be minimal. It would be much more a parallel to the old system operated by the GLC where boroughs were required to set their parking charges in terms of turnover of cars on the meters and to meet the demand.
I cannot move all the amendments together. I shall therefore move Amendment No. 50 at this stage. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining so clearly the purpose of this very large group of amendments. Although I clearly understand her keen interest in and knowledge of transport matters, I find it difficult to support the general trend of her amendments.
I am grateful for the fact that she put three options before us. Perhaps I may look at the third option. It deals with a number of matters and provides that parking arrangements, parking penalties and adjudicators should be left to the London boroughs. That is very difficult on efficiency grounds alone. It is unlikely that the call for an adjudication system will either be even throughout London or sufficient to require one adjudicator per borough, except perhaps for the central London boroughs. It therefore makes great sense for the adjudication process to be handled jointly. I shall come to the suggestion of the noble Baroness in that regard later on.
Secondly, there is a need to secure consistency across London in relation to penalty charges. That is not to say that charges will be the same across London. However, it is necessary to avoid the position where the penalty for parking against regulations is three or four times higher on one side of the road than on the other simply because they are in different London boroughs. The common-sense point there will be readily understood by all noble Lords.
Thirdly, there will have to be a degree of consultation between boroughs. One could give some examples as to why such practical consultation will be necessary. The noble Baroness suggests that instead of a joint committee, as proposed in the Bill, these matters could pass to LPAC. The view of the Association of London Authorities, which I admit is comprised of the Labour-controlled authorities in London, is that enforcement, the system of penalty
1252
charges and the new adjudication system, is so important that it requires the most serious attention. To pass this work on to the LPAC would be inefficient. The committee already has a considerable amount of important work to undertake. To ask LPAC to undertake this work in addition would place much too heavy a burden on it.
I know the noble Baroness will say that by supporting the establishment of the joint committee we are supporting the Government in establishing another layer of bureaucracy. However, we believe that this work is so important for the London boroughs that it ought to be dealt with on a co-ordinated basis through a joint committee set up especially for these purposes. Therefore we support the Government's attitude and regret that we cannot support the noble Baroness.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has a strong point which I hope the Government will attend to. My impression of the clause is that it will set up a huge bureaucratic machine. How many people will sit on this committee? How will the London boroughs find the appropriate people? I have a great aversion to going along with a proposal to set up more committees when I am uncertain as to who will serve on them and when there is no guarantee that they will do any good.
I have always believed that at the first meeting every year every committee should have as item one on its agenda what it achieved in the previous year, and if it achieved nothing, it should be dissolved. I fear this mesh of committees. I hope that my noble friend will consider the great generosity of my noble friend Lady Gardner in proposing not just one possible way by which the Government can get out of this complex mess but three choices. She has shown once again, if proof were needed, the nobility of her nature.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I have one small point to make which I hope the Minister or perhaps the noble Baroness can answer. I live in a borough where it is still possible to park free of charge. Perhaps I should not tell the world as everyone might go there. It would be unfortunate if through this legislation and through this body, whichever way it is constituted, there were some arbitrary rule that all boroughs should conform to exactly the same arrangements over parking meters or off-street parking. The next step would be the Government telling them that they must take money from people because it would help in the running of the borough. That would be most unfortunate because the boroughs still have, luckily, a good deal of local jurisdiction; and long may it remain.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for her introduction and explanation of the amendments. However, I regret to say that I am unable to accept any of them, particularly at such a late stage in the passage of the Bill.
The joint committee is an integral part of the new arrangements for enforcing parking controls in London. These arrangements provide for the

1253
Secretary of State to issue the London authorities with London-wide parking guidance. This guidance will complement the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance issued under Clause 46 and will provide the authorities with a strategy within which they can develop and co-ordinate their parking policies, taking account of the new system of permitted parking, the development of special parking areas, the capacity of London's road system and the needs of people with a disability. The guidance will also include an overview of appropriate levels of parking charges and additional parking charges because of their effect on traffic levels and patterns and, in the latter case—that is, in the case of penalty charges and charges for removing, storing and disposing of vehicles and releasing them from wheel clamps—the need to maintain a suitable relationship with the penalties and charges set by the Home Secretary under the remaining illegal controls.
It will be for the joint committee provided for under Clause. 68 of the Bill to have regard to this guidance in fulfilling its two basic functions: setting the levels of additional parking charges and providing for the system of parking adjudicators. Both functions will need to be co-ordinated if the local authority parking system provided for in the Bill is to have maximum effect in a beneficial way. They are both concerned with the practical development and overall management of the new parking system. So the co-ordination will require a different expertise from that provided by the London Planning Advisory Committee.
It is of course true that LPAC is an existing organisation with a statutory duty to represent the views of all the London authorities in preparing advice to the Government. But this duty is related to planning and development in London. While the expertise associated with that duty is highly relevant to the preparation of the Secretary of State's parking guidance, where we see an important role for LPAC, it is r of appropriate when it comes to the more detailed operational functions that will be of concern to the joint committee.
The levels of additional parking charges will need to be co-ordinated so that they bear a suitable relationship, one area with another, and are appropriately consistent with the penalties and charges; applied to the control of illegal parking. This will avoid the undesirable displacement of parked vehicles from one area or road to another. It will be particularly important as the special parking areas develop, when the local authorities and the police will be responsible for enforcing different sets of parking controls over the same types of contravention. It will also have a continuing importance in relation to illegal parking on the priority routes and other main roads, where enforcement responsibility will remain with the police.
However, I can confirm—I hope this will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—that the joint committee will have no role in or influence over parking charges, as distinct from additional parking charges, set by the London authorities. The Secretary of Stat, will provide an overview of these charges in his parsing guidance, but that is all. As one who also
1254
lives in London in an area where there are no parking charges at the moment, I very much endorse that approach.
It will also be appropriate to co-ordinate the provision of parking adjudicator services and the results of their work because of the nature and importance of that work—a point made strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. With the implementation of the provisions in the Bill, local authority parking control services will become an important instrument of traffic policy in London. They will have a wide impact on drivers, business and residents.
It will be important for the services to be provided to a consistently high standard across London. The parking adjudicators will effectively monitor these standards through the services they provide to drivers and owners who feel aggrieved at the treatment they have received from the local authorities. So they will need to provide a consistent quality of service as well. The joint committee will be able to arrange this. It will also be responsible for co-ordinating and publishing an annual report on the work of the parking adjudicators and submitting it to the Secretary of State. This will be an important control and safeguard over the operation of the whole local authority parking system and it is difficult to see how these objectives could be met if matters are simply left in the hands of 33 individual authorities.
I hope that my slightly lengthy explanation, and the assurances that I have given over the role of the joint committee in relation to local authority parking charges, will satisfy my noble friend Lady Gardner, and indeed my noble friend Lord Peyton as well, and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept that all 33 London boroughs will be unable to agree everything. There is not necessarily any understanding between them. However, I have formally moved Amendment No. 50. Therefore, I now beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 60, line 44, at end insert:
(" ( ) Before making any regulations under subsection (11) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Joint Committee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, an amendment in similar terms was moved in Committee. It may be recalled that in an earlier amendment my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis drew attention to the fact that 16 points were to be considered by the Secretary of State in issuing regulations. Clause 68(12) sets out the provisions for the parking adjudication procedures. Many of the issues for regulation have cost implications for the joint committee. The joint committee is obliged to fund the procedures. These include the procedure for the appeal, the likelihood of appeals in written form, the award of costs and procedures for the notification of decisions. Therefore it seems reasonable that the joint committee should be consulted on these regulations. The body will have to provide and finance a service.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he thought that the joint committee would be consulted informally. When he was pressed to accept formal statutory consultation he promised to look into the matter. That is why we are bringing the issue before the House again with this amendment.
I hope the Government will accept the amendment. If not, I hope we shall be given sound reasons as to why formal consultations should not be preferred to the informal consultations to which his noble friend referred when the matter was raised at Committee stage. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord said we covered this ground at Committee stage when we considered an identical amendment. I subsequently wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, explaining the position. I should like to confirm that position to your Lordships' House. The regulations will cover the procedures to apply in proceedings before parking adjudicators. The council on Tribunals is the body with special competence in these matters. The parking adjudicators will be among the tribunals which the Council is empowered to supervise by virtue of paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Bill. That paragraph amends the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. Section 10 of that Act requires the council to be consulted before a Minister makes procedural rules for a tribunal covered by the Act.
It is only in very rare circumstances that Parliament has created an obligation to consult bodies other than the Council on Tribunals on procedural matters. There is, for example, no obligation to consult such bodies as the TUC or the CBI on procedure regulations for industrial tribunals when the findings may have far greater and fundamental effects for many people and their livelihoods than a parking grievance. The joint committee provided for under Clause 68(1) will have no special competence in procedural matters, and I do not believe there is any justification for departing from the normal practice in the present case.
I do, however, accept that the joint committee will have a close interest in the procedures before parking adjudicators. I also believe that this interest will extend beyond the cost of financing the adjudicators. The adjudicators will be an important element in the system for enforcing the new system of parking controls, and the local authorities will want to know that their operation will be quick and efficient. As my noble friend Lord Cavendish said in Committee, we would expect the joint committee to be consulted informally on the draft statutory instrument. I hope it will be helpful for me to give a firm undertaking that this will be so and that that reassurance will be sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, so that, in the light of what I have said, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My lords, I think the Minister has been helpful on two points. First, I believe he said that the question of costs would be dealt with and the joint
1256
committee would have the costs of carrying out the work reimbursed in some way. Secondly, he gave an undertaking that informal consultations would definitely be arranged, even though there would not be the formal ones to which we refer. I believe that to be a helpful offer by the Minister, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 61:
Page 62, line 1, leave out ("the Joint Committee") and insert ("LPAC").
The Noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 61 to 66. I now wish formally to move them in order to place on record that I reserve the right to bring them back at Third Reading. I do not know whether that can be done en bloc.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, when we come to the next block of amendments it will probably be wiser for the noble Baroness to say "not moved". She does not then expose herself to the possibility that the Government Front Bench will wish to negative her amendments.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not thinking of negativing them, though the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, tempts me. It is not necessary for my noble friend to say anything other than "not moved". She does not lose the right to come back at Third Reading.
[Amendments Nos. 61 to 66 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Fixing of certain parking and other charges for London]:
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 70 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 62, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State, any such additional parking charges may include the requirement that all outstanding parking charges registered against a specific vehicle during the period in which the current registered keeper was properly registered, except those against which undecided representations have been made to the local authority or the parking adjudicator, shall be paid as part of the release fee for vehicles which have been removed or immobilised.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 71 raises the issue of persistent offenders, which noble Lords will recall was dealt with at Committee stage. At that time, the general principle that this issue should be tackled was supported on all sides of the Committee. There was no dissent that such action needed to be taken. Though it presented some practical problems, the Minister promised to go away and reconsider the principle.
The amendment allows the principle to stand without detailed consideration of the practicalities by permitting the Secretary of State to issue regulations which would cover ways of dealing with persistent offenders. The reason for doing this was stated at Committee stage to be the following:
"A major problem in enforcing parking regulations is from the persistent offender, who consistently ignores both the law and the penalty associated with it".
Another point made was:

1257
"It is only when a vehicle is clamped or towed away that there is any certainty that the payment of penalties will be forthcoming".
Reference was also made to the fact that:
"Unpaid fixed penalty notices can be accumulated and, in many cases, mount up to large numbers".
Information was given by myself and other noble Lords about the number of instances where offenders had run up substantial numbers of fixed penalty notices which they had not paid.
The procedures already laid down in the Bill will make one advance, in that local authority enforcement will require both the penalty charge and the release fee to be paid before a car which has been clamped or towed away can be released. Improvement in the provision to deal with persistent offenders is also needed. What I am seeking with the amendment is for action to be taken and for the Minister to get down to the question of practicalities to see what can be done. But w should not cover ourselves merely by saying that the practical difficulties are such that we cannot deal with the persistent offender. The Minister said at Committee stage that he would like to go away and think about it. I hope there has been an opportunity for the matter to be considered and that whatever may be the Minister's reply he can accept the amendment, leaving to a later date the working out of the details and practicalities. We need to go on record that action must be taken to deal with persistent offenders. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord to say that this amendment would deal with the persistent offender, I support the principle of it. It has reached the stage where many people look upon even a wheel clamp as just nothing; it does not bother them. They may have to pay to have the wheel clamp removed but at least they get away with all their other parking tickets. One knows there are many people with huge lists of unpaid fines which are totally disregarded. When they come to court with bills for hundreds and hundreds of pounds they say there is no way they can possibly meet them. Questions are raised as to how anyone can let such bills be accumulated. I support the principle of the amend Went as I understand it to deal with the persistent offender.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his introduction of this amendment, which develops further the principle of an amendment moved in Committee. Like my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I can see some superficial attractions in the principle. But we consider that the practical difficulties, even with the changes proposed, are so basic as to render the proposal unworkable. The difficulties are still the need for the London authorities to develop a highly sophisticated recording system covering the whole of London, and the inability of that system to provide sufficiently accurate information at the moment at which a driver or owner of a vehicle seeks the release of that vehicle following wheel clamping or removal action by the local authority.
The recording system would need to provide for each payment point in each borough to be capable of
1258
establishing whether penalty charge notices issued anywhere in London are outstanding in respect of a vehicle to be released, and to know the up-to-date position about any representations to relevant local authorities and appeals to parking adjudicators. It is true that the amendment provides an exception to requiring the person collecting the vehicle to pay an outstanding charge where a representation to a local authority and a parking adjudicator is undecided. However, in order to decide on the appropriateness of an exception, it would still be necessary for the individual payment point to establish whether a representation or an appeal has been made within the due time.
I do not believe that the information supplied to the recording system would be sufficiently responsive to provide an up-to-the moment picture on which individual payment points could rely for their decisions. Even if the payment points were to have that information, and, as I say, I doubt that this could be the case, owners or drivers could argue that they were not the owner of the vehicle at the time it incurred the outstanding notice. The local authority payment point would therefore need a further capability of checking with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, but the agency's records rely on both the present and previous owners of vehicles having completed and returned the vehicle registration forms when ownership is transferred. So its information may not be totally up-to-date either.
Considerations about the effectiveness of the amendment in achieving its objective of dealing with persistent offenders also need to bear in mind that penalty notices cannot be "outstanding" until drivers and owners have had the opportunity to use the full set of procedures, including representations to local authorities and appeals to parking adjudicators. In extremis, those procedures could take several months to complete.
In those circumstances, I am still unable to accept this amendment. I firmly believe that the procedures set out in Clauses 61 and 64 and Schedule 5 will minimise the number of outstanding penalty charges in respect of vehicles parked at "permitted" parking places in London. The threat of early wheel clamping action—I cannot agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner—which has proved to be the most effective deterrent against illegal parking offences, should reduce the number of contraventions against the new controls. Where contraventions do occur and wheel clamping is not done, the procedures provide the incentive of a discount from the full penalty charge in the case of early payment of a penalty charge notice and the threat of an enhanced penalty charge if the notice remains unpaid beyond the due date; and, as has been acknowledged, where wheel clamping is undertaken, or the vehicle is removed, provision is already made for the penalty charge to be paid at the same time as the release or retrieval fee.
It is conceivable that the local authorities will be able to develop efficient communications and data collection systems which will help to identify persistent offenders. It is open to them to concentrate enforcement effort on motorists who regularly

1259
contravene the new controls, and to clarify any outstanding issues with the persons collecting the vehicles before the vehicles are released from clamping or from vehicle pounds. It seems to me to be against the rules of natural justice that we should seek to legislate to recover back payment of previous penalty charges "over the counter" and with no mechanism for challenge, and to set aside some of the enforcement procedures and safeguards already provided for in the Bill; for example, the ability of an owner to make a statutory declaration.
I repeat, the Bill already provides a mechanism for the enforcement of unpaid PCNs and the Government are not persuaded that further provision should be made. With that lengthy explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the matter has been reconsidered, as promised in Committee. I recognise that the Bill contains provisions which will help to improve enforcement. I also appreciate that when we tabled the amendment we realised that there were difficulties. The Minister confirmed that there are still difficulties. I do not know what we can do to improve the position. I recognise that a huge bureaucratic machine might have to be established to keep information on all offenders. On the other hand, the casual offender who is caught once a year, or even less frequently, might take umbrage if he realises that someone can get away with persistent illegal parking and collect fixed penalty notices which could run into large sums of money.
I wonder whether discussions can continue with the local authority associations to see what further action can be taken to deal with persistent offenders whom we want to tackle. I agree that wheel clamping is a serious threat to someone who may commit an offence. I would think carefully about parking illegally if I knew that I was in an area where wheel clamping was in operation. I should like to see further discussions take place with a view to removing the impracticalities. When we tabled the amendment we realised that there were difficulties. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 81 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 82:
Before Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement
.—(l) In this section—
"certificated bailiff", means any person authorised to act as such under subsection (6) below; and
"a Part II debt" means any sum which is—
(a) payable under, or by virtue of, any provision of this Part of this Act; and
(b) recoverable as if it were payable under a county court order.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision—
(a) for warrants of execution in respect of Part II debts, or such class or classes of Part II debts as may be specified in the order, to be executed by certificated bailiffs;
(b) as to the requirements which must be satisfied before any person takes, with a view to enforcing the payment of—
(i) a Part II debt; or
(ii) such class or classes of Part II debts as may be so specified,
any other step of a kind specified by the order.
(3) Any such order may make such incidental and supplemental provision (including modifications of any enactment other than this Act) as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of the provision made by that order under subsection (2) above.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision in connection with the certification of bailiffs under this section and the execution of warrants of execution by such bailiffs.
(5) The regulations may, in particular, make provision—
(a) as to the security (if any) to be required from certificated bailiffs;
(b) as to the fees and expenses payable with respect to executions by certificated bailiffs; and
(c) for the suspension or cancellation of certificates issued under this section and with respect to the effect of any such suspension or cancellation.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person is a certificated bailiff if he is authorised to act as such by a certificate signed—
(a) by a judge assigned to a county court district; or
(b) in such circumstances as may be specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, by a district judge.
(7) Any person who is not a certificated bailiff but who purports to levy a distress as such a bailiff, and any person authorising him to levy it, shall be deemed to have committed a trespass.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the new clause puts further flesh on the arrangements for the recovery of unpaid penalty charges and sums ordered to be paid by a parking adjudicator. The aim is to provide an efficient and effective method of enforcement for local authorities.
Under the existing criminal law, unpaid fixed penalty notices are pursued through magistrates' courts. If the sum is not paid, the court may employ firms of bailiffs to seize and sell goods belonging to the vehicle owner to satisfy the debt. The new regime under Part II will enable local authorities to enforce parking controls, including the issue of parking charge notices, within their areas. Where such notices are issued, they may be enforced through the county courts. If a vehicle owner still refuses to pay and has not contested his liability before a parking adjudicator, the local authority may request the court to issue a warrant for seizure of the debtor's goods. That is clearly a different type of work to the general run of county court business.
Unlike magistrates' courts, bailiffs are an integral part of the county court structure. In 1989 over 480,000 fixed penalty notices issued in London were enforced in the magistrates' courts. The shift of enforcement of parking penalties to county courts would therefore place a severe strain on the county court bailiffs, which would result in a deterioration in the service they offer to other court users. In recognition of those factors, the new clause enables bailiffs certificated by the county courts to execute warrants for unpaid penalty charges. The clause has been drafted in consultation with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor; he wishes to make

1261
it clear that the new clause is necessary to avoid overloading the courts and to protect present levels of service. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have a few brief questions for the Minister. In respect of subsection (5), is it usual for security to be required from certificated bailiff? What shape does it take? What type of situations is it supposed to cover?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has given me a large r umber of supplementary answers. I had hoped to cover any question the noble Lord might have asked. The answer to his question is yes, £10,000.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would like to write to me on that point. I am not familiar with the position as to the security required from bailiffs. Perhaps he will tell me the circumstances it is supposed to cover. It is presumably in respect of some form of liability on the part of the bailiff.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to take e opportunity that the noble Lord offers me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Financial provisions]:
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 83, I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 84.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 65, line 19, leave out from ("reimbursing") to first ("the") in line 2l, and insert ("all reasonable costs incurred by any London authority under sections 48 to 56 of this Act, and deemed by the Director to be essential to the operation of the priority route network").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not weary the House with the arguments rehearsed in Committee. The Minister was kind enough to write to me on the point. I shall cite part of page 2 of the letter in which he said:
"I recognise that one of the most important issues from the local authorities' viewpoint "—
the point relates to the costs that they would be incurring—
"as you and Joan Ruddock"
—my honourable friend Joan Ruddock in another place—
"have suggested, is that they should not be required to take action without being reimbursed for the reasonable costs they incur in doing so.
I can see how they might be concerned at the phrase 'in whole or in part' in relation to 'reasonable costs' in clause 74(1). I am prepared, when responding to your amendment, to make it clear that it is the Government's intention that in general the Traffic Director will reimburse all the reasonable costs the local authorities incur on work they undertake in relation to the implementation and maintenance of priority routes in response to a request from him and in the manner that he prescribes. I am also prepared to make it clear that it is not our intention that the local authorities should be out of pocket as a result of the operation of the clauses covered by clause 74".
I thank the Minister for that reply. All he has to do is to confirm that the situation is as set out in the letter from which I have quoted. I am informed that the
1262
local authorities consider that that is a reasonable response. Therefore, the purpose of putting down the amendment will have been served. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his acknowledgment. As he said, I wrote to him. Perhaps I may expand on the assurances that I was able to give in that letter.
Clause 74 is intended to provide the Traffic Director with a power to reimburse costs incurred by the local authorities. It sets two basic tests as to the circumstances and conditions under which the Traffic Director may undertake that activity. It will require him to be satisfied, firstly, that the local authorities' costs have been incurred under the relevant provisions of the Bill covering the preparation and implementation of local plans and trunk road plans; and, secondly, that the costs are reasonable and represent value for money. It provides the Traffic. Director with a residual discretion if those basic tests have been met. It enables him to make:
"such payments as he considers appropriate"
and to reimburse local authorities' reasonable costs "in whole or in part".
Discretion is necessary because it is not practical to foresee precisely the form in which the Traffic Director will require the local authorities to prepare their local plans, nor the terms in which he will grant approval. Both actions will depend in part on the content of the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance. The way in which the guidance distinguishes between action which the local authorities must take to implement and maintain the priority routes and action which they might consider it desirable to undertake at the same time will be relevant.
The two phrases providing the discretion are linked and would enable the Traffic Director, in appropriate cases, not to pay part of the local authorities' costs. For example, the Traffic Director might approve the inclusion of a traffic management measure in a local plan where he considered the benefits for the network were marginal. In such a case the director would pay only a share of the reasonable costs.
I recognise the concern that the London authorities should not be required to take action without being reimbursed for the reasonable costs they incur in doing so. I should therefore like to make it clear that it is the Government's intention that in general the Traffic Director will reimburse all the reasonable costs the local authorities incur on work they undertake in relation to the implementation and maintenance of priority routes in response to a request from him and in the manner that he prescribes; and that it is not our intention that the London authorities should be out of pocket in responding to those requests in the prescribed manner.
I hope that with those further assurances, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 65, line 20, leave out ("57") and insert ("54, 56 and 57").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment corrects an error in the Bill. Clause 74 provides the Traffic Director with a power to reimburse reasonable costs which the local authorities incur on work they undertake on implementing and maintaining the priority routes. It includes references to those clauses under which the local authorities may incur relevant costs. However, the reference to Clause 55 is inappropriate and the purpose of the amendment is to remove it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 66, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define "disability" and other expressions) shall apply in relation to this Part of this Act as it applies to that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendment of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988]:
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 73, line 6, at end insert:
(". In the entry relating to section 143 of that Act (using vehicle while uninsured or unsecured against third-party risks) in column 4 for the words "Level 4" there shall be substituted the words "Level 5".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill was being discussed in another place considerable concern was expressed about the scale of the problem of driving without insurance. People who deliberately drive without insurance show an irresponsible disregard for other road users and it is important that the penalty acts as a deterrent.
We have already increased the penalty points for this offence from a range of 4 to 8 points to a new higher range of 6 to 8 points. The maximum fine is at present at Level 4 of the standard scale, namely £1,000. The amendment would increase the fine to Level 5, which is the maximum penalty which can be imposed for a summary offence. It will allow the courts greater scope to reflect the financial advantage to be gained by the offender who fails to take out third-party insurance. I have pleasure in moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I commend the amendment to the House. This is a very serious offence which is not regarded by the general public as being as serious as it is. I am glad that the Government have now raised the penalty to the maximum which the circumstances allow. I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 88:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:
("Schedule
Permitted and Special Parking Areas outside London
Permitted parking areas
1.—(1) Where an application for an order under this sub-paragraph is made to the Secretary of State—

(a) with respect to the whole, or any part, of their area, by a county council in England and Wales;

(b) with respect to the whole of their area, by a metropolitan district council;

(c) with respect to the whole of their areas, by two or more metropolitan district councils acting jointly;

(d) with respect to the whole, or any part, of their area, by a district council in Wales acting with the consent of the county council; or

(e) with respect to the whole, or any part, of the Isles of Scilly, by the Council of the Isles of Scilly,

he may make an order designating the whole, or any part, of the area to which the application relates as a permitted parking area.
(2) Before making any such application, a county council in Wales shall consult the district councils whose areas lie wholly or partly within the area to which the application relates.
(3) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the appropriate chief officer of police.
(4) While an order under sub-paragraph (1) above is in force, the following provisions shall cease to apply in relation to the permitted parking area designated by the order—

(a) section 35A(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (offences), so far as it relates to the contravention of, or non-compliance with, any provision of an order made under section 35 of that Act (use of parking places) in relation to parking places provided under section 32(1) (b) of that Act (power of local authorities to provide free parking places on roads); and

(b) section 47(1) of the Act of 1984 (offences) in so far as it applies in relation to any designated parking place.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (4) above by adding further provisions (but only in so far as they apply in relation to stationary vehicles).
(6) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (5) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such representatives of chief officers of police; and

(b) such associations of local authorities (if any),

as he considers appropriate.
Special parking areas
2.—(l) Where an application for an order under this sub-paragraph is made to the Secretary of State—

(a) with respect to the whole, or any part, of their area, by a county council in England and Wales;

(b) with respect to the whole, or any part, of their area, by a metropolitan district council; or

(c) with respect to the whole, or any part, of the Isles of Scilly, by the Council of the Isles of Scilly,

he may make an order designating the whole, or any part, of the area to which the application relates as a special parking area.
(2) Before making any such application, a county council in Wales shall consult the district councils whose areas lie wholly or partly within the area to which the application relates.
(3) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (I) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the appropriate chief officer of police.
(4) While an order under sub-paragraph (I) above is in force, the following provisions shall cease to apply in relation to the permitted parking area designated by the order—

(a) section 5 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (contravention of a traffic regulation order under section I of that Act to be an offence), so far as it

1265
relates to the contravention of any provision of such an order prohibiting or restricting the waiting, or the loading and unloading, of vehicles;

(b) section 11 of the Act of 1984 (contravention of, or failure to comply with, experimental traffic order under section 9 of that Act), so far as it relates to the contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision of such an order prohibiting or restricting the waiting, or the loading and unloading, of vehicles;

(c) section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (parking of heavy vehicles on verges, central reservations and footpaths etc. to be an offence);

(d) section 21 of the Act of 1988 (prohibition of driving or parking on cycle tracks), so far as it makes it an offence to park a motor vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (4) above by adding further provisions (but only ir, so far as they apply in relation to stationary vehicles).
(6) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (5) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such representatives of chief officers of police; and

(b) such associations of local authorities (if any); as he considers appropriate.

Control of parking in permitted and special parking areas
3.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any vehicle which is stationary in a permitted parking area, or special parking area, in circumstances in which an offence would have been committed with respect to the vehicle but for paragraph 1 or (as the case may be) paragraph 2 above.
(2) A penalty charge shall be payable with respect to the vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle.
(3) An order under paragraph 1 or 2 above designating a permitted parking area, or special parking area, may—

(a) provide for such provisions of Part II of this Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to apply, with such modifications (if any) as he considers appropriate, in relation to the permitted or special parking area in question; and

(b) make such modifications of any enactment, including any provision of this Act, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of the provisions of paragraph 1 or 2 above, this paragraph or the order.

Orders under this Schedule
4.—(1) Any power to make an order conferred by this Schedule shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(2) Any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 88 with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91:
Page 78, line 37, leave out ("In section 104 of that Act (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked)") and insert:
("(1) Section 104 of that Act (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) for the word "constable" there shall be substituted the words "person authorised to give such a direction by the chief officer of police within whose area the vehicle in question was found.
(3)"). Page 78, line 44, at end insert:
(".—(1) Section 105 of that Act (exemptions from section 104) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6) (a), for the words from "either" to use) of" there shall be substituted the words "in accordance with regulations under".
1266
(3) In subsection (6) (b), for "117(2) (b)" there shall be substituted "117(1) (b)".").
Page 85, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (1), in the definition of "trolley vehicle" for the words "and moved by" there shall be substituted the word "under", and at the end there shall be added the words "(whether or not there is in addition a source of power on board the vehicle)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91 en bloc. I have already spoken to the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 87, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("after") in line 13 and insert:
("(1) Section 17 of that Act (provisions as to proceedings for certain offences in connection with the construction and use of vehicles) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for the words "section 42(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (contravention" there shall be substituted the words "section 40A, 41A, 41B or 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (using vehicle in dangerous condition or contravention".
(3) In subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The Traffic Director for London]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 94, line 5, after ("contain") insert:
("(a) a statement on the effectiveness of the Director in—
(i) protecting local businesses in London;
(ii) protecting the environment;
(iii) promoting road safety;
(iv) meeting the needs of people with disabilities;
(v) meeting the needs of cyclists, pedestrians, and public transport users; and
(vi) restraining any additional car commuting into central London. and (b) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to an issue which is very similar to but not the same as the issue which we debated earlier. It relates to a provision concerning the Traffic Director's annual report. We feel that the provisions which we have set out in Amendment No. 92A should be included in the annual report. They are quite different from the points that were raised in opposition by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, earlier. I hope that the Minister will feel it appropriate to accept the amendment, which I consider to be perfectly reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my arguments are, of course, somewhat similar to those which I deployed earlier in relation to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 23.
I remain of the view that it would be inappropriate to try to list on the face of the Bill all the issues which should be covered in the Traffic Director's report. As I said during the earlier debate, I do not believe that a list prepared at this stage would be exhaustive. The noble Lord's list does not, for example, include

1267
references to reducing congestion or to the interests of residents, which we have said should be taken fully into account.s
The Traffic Director's annual report will give account of his activities throughout the year, including his success or otherwise in meeting the objectives in the traffic management guidance which, as I said earlier, will include all those points listed in the amendment. As I have already mentioned, those objectives will be comprehensive and it would be unproductive to try to list them on the face of this Bill.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will accept my assurance that the issues that he has raised will be addressed in the Secretary of State's new traffic management guidance and that as a consequence the Traffic Director's annual report will include a reference to those objectives and how they are being achieved. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by that reply.
7 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I shall of course read with great interest every word, sentence, dot and comma of the Traffic Director's report to see whether it complies with what the Minister has said. But having said that, I accept the Minister's assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Parking penalties]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 95, line 3, leave out from ("serve") to end of line 4 and insert ("a notice ("a notice to owner") on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 94 to 97, including Amendment No. 96A. These are all drafting amendments correcting, improving or clarifying the detailed procedures set down under Schedule 5 for pursuing unpaid penalty charge notices. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 97:
Page 95, leave out line 5.
Page 95, line 42, leave out ("him") and insert ("that firm").
Page 97, leave out line 17.
Page 98, line 6, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
Page 98, line 38, leave out from beginning to second ("is") in line 39 and insert:
("10. Any charge certificate, or notice under this Schedule—
(a) may be served by post; and
(b) where the person on whom it is to be served is a body corporate").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments in relation to London]:
The Principal Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I must point out to the House that if Amendment No. 98 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 99 and 100. I now call Amendment No. 98.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 99, leave out line 37 and insert:
("5.—(l) Section 55 of that Act (financial provisions relating to designation orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for the words from "designated" to the end there shall be substituted the words "for which they are the local authority and which are—
(a) in the case of the council of a London borough and the Common Council of the City of London, parking places on the highway; and
(b) in the case of any other authority, designated parking places."
(3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 98, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 101 and 108. The amendments are consequential upon the provisions relating to the new decriminalised system of enforcing permitted parking controls in London. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 99, line 44 at end insert:
("(4) In subsection (4) (c), the words from "to the council" to "City of London" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 100, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 101 and insert:
("Paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985 shall be repealed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the issue of the general need for designated roads was raised, given the fact that priority routes were being introduced. It was pointed out in Committee that we now have the following tiers of roads in London: trunk roads, primary routes, priority roads and designated roads. Some of those categories overlap; for example, some but not all designated routes are priority routes. Similarly, some but not all designated roads are primary routes, although this network is not the same as the priority route network. The situation can lead to considerable confusion.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked the Minister to comment on a particular point. My noble friend said:
"There is a strong case for abolishing all designated roads in this Bill on the basis that they will either be priority routes and therefore fall within that purview or should be just local roads".
The Minister promised to consider that point. This amendment is really a probing amendment to ascertain what consideration the Minister has given to whether the network should be restricted to priority routes and local roads. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to respond to this amendment and to outline our proposals in more detail. Our present proposal is to base the priority route network on the primary routes in London, with a suitable extension on to certain

1269
important roads in central London. It will become the top layer of London's road hierarchy. The primary routes include all London's trunk roads and a number of designated roads under the 1985 Act. I can confirm that it is our intention to de-designate the latter roads for the purposes of the 1985 Act at the time they are designated as priority routes. But we do not believe that there is a case for designated roads outside the priority route network losing their status under the 1985 Act as they will continue to have a strategic role to play in the movement of London's traffic. The remaining designated roads will complement the priority route network and become the second layer of London's road hierarchy.
Should experience with the priority routes show that a particular designated road no longer needs that status, an order could be made under Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985 providing for it to be de-designated. There is therefore no need to make an express provision on this point in the Road Traffic Bill. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as I have already said, this is a probing amendment to ascertain the Government's view on their reconsideration of the matter. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I shall read them carefully. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 101, line 30 leave out ("a London authority") and insert ("any council of a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 104 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 105 and 106. These are all technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 105 and 106:
Page 101, line 31 leave out ("the authority") and insert ("they").
Page 101, leave out lines 34 and 35
On Question, amendments agreed to. Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 107 to 113:
Page 102, line 3, at end insert:
"1970 c.44.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
In section 21(4) the words "and any badge" onwards.
In section 21(5) the words "and in the case" onwards.")
Page 103, line 15, column 3, at end insert:
("In section 55(4) (c) the words from "to the Council" to "City of London".").
Page 103, line 26, column 3, after ("(8)") insert ("the words following paragraph (b), in the definition of "appropriate authority", and").
Page 103, line 44, column 3 at end insert:
("In section 117(3), the definition of "disabled person's badge.")
Page 103, line 44, column 3, at end insert: ("Section 141.").
Page 104, line 39, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 193. Schedule 4.").
Page 106, line 22, at end insert:
("1991 c.00 The Road Traffic Act 1991.
In Schedule 3, paragraph 78.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have all been spoken to before at various stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991
7.8 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, the Broadcasting Act 1990 requires the BBC and Channel 3, 4 and 5 licensees and domestic satellite service licensees to ensure that at least 25 per cent. of the qualifying programmes broadcast on their services are made up of a range and diversity of independent productions. It also provides for the Secretary of State, after consultation with the BBC and the ITC, to define by order the meaning of qualifying programmes and independent productions. This draft order accordingly provides the necessary definitions of those terms.
The provisions in the Act relating to the 25 per cent. independent production requirement were essentially a formalisation of earlier voluntary agreements. Your Lordships will recall that in November 1986 the BBC and the independent television companies committed themselves in principle to achieve a 25 per cent. commissioning rate of independent productions by the end of 1992. A detailed scheme was subsequently agreed by all parties and announced in April 1988. We have been pleased with the progress the broadcasters have made towards achieving the 25 per cent. target by way of the interim targets which they have set themselves. The broadcasting White Paper indicated our intention to place this voluntary initiative on a statutory basis and there has, it is fair to say, been a general welcome for the provisions in the new Broadcasting Act.
Before laying this draft order, we had detailed consultations, not just with the BBC and the ITC, but with representatives of the independent production sector themselves. We have listened carefully to all the views expressed. Although the order will not come into force until 1st January 1993, we have been conscious of its importance in the context of the current application process for the new Channel 3 licences. We recognised that bidders would have a keen interest in knowing what the detailed rules regarding independent productions were to be. With that in mind, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the outline of our proposed arrangements on 14th March this year and laid the draft order on 18th April. It was approved in another place on 21st May.
Many of the detailed provisions of the order follow the guidelines for the voluntary independent production initiative which have already been agreed. There is, however, one important difference relating to permissible levels of shareholding as between broadcasters and independents, about which I shall say more in a moment. More generally, we have incorporated in the order a number of detailed improvements and clarifications derived from our experience with the voluntary scheme.
As I said, the essential purpose of the order is to define the terms "qualifying programmes" and "independent productions" in order to make clear, first, what can qualify for inclusion in the 25 per cent. quota, and, secondly, to answer the question "25 per cent. of what?". In other words, qualifying programmes represent the 100 per cent. denominator, at least 25 per cent of which must be made up of independent productions, as defined.
Qualifying programmes include those which the broadcaster makes or commissions alone and also those in which there has been collaboration with other broadcasters, provided that the broadcaster in question contributes at least 25 per cent. of the cost. Programmes are also included in which pictures and sounds are received direct from abroad—for instance, from international sporting events such as World Cup football matches—but to which the broadcaster or independent producer in this country adds commentary and further pictures. To qualify, at least 25 per cent. of the pictures must be provided by the broadcaster who is broadcasting the programme.
Under the present voluntary initiative, an independent production company is defined as one in which broadcasters have no shareholding. Furthermore, an independent producer may not be part of the same group as a broadcaster. When we came to consider the content of the draft order, we concluded that it would not be practicable or sensible to carry over that provision as it stood. For instance, under the no cross-ownership provision, it would be technically possible for an independent producer's pension fund, invested in a portfolio of shares which included a broadcaster, to disqualify that independent producer from independent status.
It would be an administrative nightmare for broadcasters, independent producers and regulators
1272
alike to keep track of all the minor and possibly unintentional cross-shareholdings that could occur. Furthermore, a complete ban on cross-shareholdings would leave open the possibility of spiteful shareholding whereby an aggrieved broadcaster could buy just one single share in an independent producer simply to prevent a piece of work commissioned from that producer being counted as an independent production.
Having ruled out a total ban on cross-shareholding, we had to consider what level of shareholding between broadcasters and independents should be permitted, bearing in mind the need to ensure that independents really were independent and that the objectives of the 25 per cent. initiative were not frustrated. After consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading and consideration of a range of options, we decided that the level of cross-ownership should be fixed at 15 per cent. for independent producers in broadcasters' companies and vice versa. That level of shareholding achieves a nice balance, in that it is not enough to allow significant influence to be exerted on a company but is sufficient to reap some of the benefits of cross-shareholding.
When we consulted, we found that both broadcasters and many independent producers themselves considered our proposed arrangements not only workable but positively attractive. The broadcasters argued that the system would enable them to provide the financial security and stability which many independent producers sought and which would help move on the independent production sector from its "cottage industry" beginnings. It was also pointed out that our proposals could benefit would-be bidders for Channel 3 franchises with no previous broadcasting experience as it would allow them to establish formal links with experienced programme producers. Thus, both established and potential broadcasters saw merit in the 15 per cent. level of cross-shareholding.
Views among independent producers were, it is true, more mixed, with some arguing for only a minimal 5 per cent. or so cross-ownership, and others saying that a higher figure of perhaps 20 per cent. was needed. Those independent producers who argued for allowing a significant degree of cross-ownership said that they would welcome opportunities formally to team up with broadcasters and suggested that, without the chance to do so, independent producers could struggle to achieve any significant market position. I believe that the 15 per cent. figure in the order will assist the development of the independent production sector in that and other ways.
I have set out briefly the general provisions of the draft order and have outlined in some detail the reasons that led us to opt for the 15 per cent. level of cross-shareholding. Taken as a whole, I suggest that the measures represent a sensible framework within which the statutory 25 per cent. independent production requirement may operate. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order so clearly. We are discussing it in the context of the bids for the Channel 3 franchises, which have all now been declared. When the Bill was before the House, we made clear our opposition to awarding contracts to the highest bidder as we were concerned about the consequences for national and regional programming. Those issues are still relevant today, as they are to the order that we are discussing. We certainly welcome the not-less-than 25 per cent. quota for independent producers and believe that they have an important role to play. However, a number of problems may arise as a result of the definitions of "qualifying programmes" and "independent producers" contained in the order and it is to those that I should like to address myself.
The first concern is the danger of cartels developing within the independent sector. In spite of what the Minister said, the Independent Programme Producers Association has expressed concern that the order contai as too few controls on cross-shareholding between broadcasters and independents. Under the terms of the order, a broadcaster could have up to a 15 per cent. shareholding in an independent producer. IPPA fears that that could lead to Channel 3 broadcasters gaining stakes in a number of independents and could eventually lead to cartels of broadcasters controlling most independent commissions within a regional area.
Equally possible under the terms of the order is the position whereby a number of independents could obtain a 15 per cent. stake in a Channel 3 licence holder. According to IPPA, that could lead to a cartel of major independent production companies carving up the 25 per cent. independent Channel 3 productions between them and still being free to bid for space in Channels 4 and 5 and the BBC. The Government have suggested, as the Minister said tonight, that any cartel arrangements would be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading, but, according to the independent producers, that does not appear to be the right way to go about it. Surely the cartel controls should have been included in the order. As the value of the involvement of the Office of Fair Trading in that specialised area is doubtful, however assiduous it is in its efforts in that field, will the Minister at least agree that the situation should be monitored as it develops and then, if necessary, a further order introduced to control cartels?
A further problem in the order—I gave the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, notice of my intention to raise this issue, which I believe I am right in saying was not raised in another place—concerns the position of relatives of a director of a broadcasting company. The order makes it clear that no independent production company which has a 15 per cent. shareholding in a broadcasting company can maintain its independent producer status if any one of its shareholders controls more flan 15 per cent. of the share capital of that independent production company and is also a director of the broadcaster. If the director of a broadcasting company also controls the share capital of an independent production company, then it seems
1274
clear from the way in which the order is drafted that the director would be able simply to transfer the shares which he or she holds in the independent company to his or her spouse or other members of their immediate family in order to ensure that the independent production company still qualifies as an independent producer.
The confusion on this issue—which I understand has been looked at by a number of lawyers—seems all the more unnecessary when clear definitions on "connection" are given in other sections of the Broadcasting Act. For example, Schedule 2 (page 174) gives details of restrictions on the holding of licences and clearly states that for the purposes of measuring control or shareholdings, associates of individuals are to be included. Associates are defined in detail in the Act as an individual's:
"husband or wife and any relative, or husband or wife of a relative, of that individual or of that individual's husband or wife".
I cannot believe that in drafting this order it was the intention of the Home Secretary to allow an individual in such circumstances to take such action. That would appear to circumvent the proposals in the order for avoiding a conflict of interest between a broadcaster and an independent producer. Possibly that was not even realised or perhaps it was overlooked at the time and it should be looked at again.
A further worry within the industry is that the order provides little clarification of production costs. Existing distinctions between co-productions, which are acceptable for the quota, and acquisitions, pre-sales, output details and commissions, which are not acceptable, according to the IPPA are fast disappearing. That could lead to broadcasters fulfilling their 25 per cent. quota by disguising acquisition contracts to make them look like independent commissions. The independent producers are particularly anxious, as this could lead to the import of more American and Australian programmes at the expense of the UK industry. I wonder whether the Minister would also comment on the fact that in the order there is no reference to non-EC countries and the 25 per cent. quota.
Finally, I should like to say a word about training within the broadcasting industry. During the Committee stage in this House, as a result of pressure from the Opposition the Government introduced amendments which make Channel 3 and Channel 5 companies responsible for describing their proposals for encouraging the training of staff in independent companies. We should still like to see the Government encourage licence holders to have more active involvement in the training of freelances and others employed by the independents.
Certainly the 25 per cent. quota is to be very much welcomed. But the points that I raised would both clarify and improve the order if they were incorporated in it, in particular the point that deals with the possibility, because it is contrary to what is already in Schedule 2 to the Act, of the ability to transfer shareholdings to an immediate relative. As this is a draft order it would surely not be too difficult for the Government to take it back and incorporate those improvements. I am sure that the noble

1275
Viscount will appreciate that these are not party political points but points of substance. If the order is left as it is at the moment it will not work as I feel sure that the Government intended it to do.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with some of the points raised by the noble Baroness. Regarding the danger of cartels developing, we do not consider that it is at all likely that a group of broadcasters—or for that matter independent producers—could gang together with a common interest without intervention from other Channel 3 licensees or the Office of Fair Trading. In particular, it is likely that such arrangements would constitute a restrictive trade practice or breach competition rules as they apply to the network.
In those circumstances, where it seems unlikely that the nightmare scenario of a coalition of broadcasters would happen in practice, we should not want to impose any unnecessary restrictions on aggregated shareholdings. The Office of Fair Trading would not be in favour of that. Moreover, once we have set out a maximum level of shareholding—say at 30 per cent. —we move back into the realm of the possibility of spiteful shareholding or unwitting investment above the permitted level through, say, a pension fund.
Finally, it would be administratively very difficult for the ITC to administer a maximum level as it would involve it in continuous investigation as to the percentage of independent producers with an interest in a broadcaster, and vice versa. On another point, we shall of course undertake to keep the position under review.
I turn to some of the other points that were made. The definition of "associate" in Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 is specifically affected by Article 3 of the draft order. The noble Baroness asked whether it would be possible for a close relative of a person who is a director of a Channel 3 licence holder and has a 15 per cent. shareholding in an independent production company to have any further shareholding in the independent production company. The answer is that this would not be possible. The intention of Article 3(4) and (5) is to set out that neither a broadcaster nor an associate of a broadcaster taken together may have a shareholding greater than 15 per cent. in a producer or an associate of a producer, or vice versa.
The intention of the first two lines of subsection (5), which states that:
"any reference to a broadcaster or producer includes a reference to a person connected with, respectively, a broadcaster or producer",
is to ensure that all connected bodies are treated as one person. Accordingly, since two close relatives would be connected persons for these purposes, if one of them were a director of a broadcaster the maximum combined shareholding that a person and all persons connected with him could have in an independent producer would be 15 per cent.
1276
The noble Baroness also asked me why the order did not specify that independent productions must be of European origin. It is possible that we might be deemed to have contravened our GATT obligations if we specified that independent producers must be European. However, I do not believe that that will necessarily mean that there will be a large influx of non-European independent productions. The Broadcasting Act requires that a proper proportion of programmes included in a regional Channel 3 service must be of European origin. In its invitation to apply for regional Channel 3 licences, the ITC has set out that it will expect the majority of hours of programming to be of European origin.
The ITC has also indicated that it would expect at least 65 per cent. of the hours of programming transmitted within the calendar year to be originally produced or commissioned for regional Channel 3 services. Consequently not more than 35 per cent. should be acquired programmes originally made for some other market.
In addition, the ITC has reflected the requirement in the European Community's directive on television broadcasting that at least 10 per cent. of transmission time, excluding the time allocated to news, sports events, games, advertising and the Teletext service, must consist of European independent productions.
I believe that the effect of the combination of those requirements will be that the overwhelming majority of independent productions will be of European origin; and I dare say that the vast majority will be British. I hope that that deals with the point raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the point about relatives, of which I gave the noble Viscount notice. It has not been raised previously.
The position is not as clear as it might be. I have been amazed at the experience of a number of people who have been in touch with me on the issue. They are extremely worried. I listened carefully to what the noble Viscount said. It does not seem to mirror Schedule 2 at page 174 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. I do not wish to hold up the order. However, I am worried about whether I should obtain an undertaking on monitoring the control of cartels in regard to relatives. Many people who know more about the matter than I do are anxious about this.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in my answer to the noble Baroness I stated that we thought that that would not be possible. However, I shall read carefully what she said today and write to her to clarify the position.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commercial and Private Bank Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.