Lords Sitting of 6 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.
The Marquess of Normanby The Marquess of Normanby —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Rail Dispute: Negotiations
Lord Haskel: My Lords, with the leave of the House and with the permission of my noble friend Lord Desai, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intervened in the recent rail dispute.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, negotiations about the pay of signalling staff are a matter for Railtrack. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport made clear to Railtrack the importance which the Government attach to controlling public expenditure and restraining pay bill costs.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response. But is he aware that everybody in the House would like to know what the Government are doing to get the railways back to work?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the negotiations are a matter for Railtrack and the sole responsibility of Railtrack. It is therefore up to Railtrack and the RMT—particularly the RMT—to get the negotiations back under way.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, would not a straight Answer to the first Question have been, "Yes, sir"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, sir.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not the Minister find the answer he has just given a little inconsistent when Railtrack conceded that the 5.7 per cent. increase in pay, which took account of past productivity, was not pursued because of the Government's intervention? How does that square with the Minister's bland innocence that the Government had nothing to do with the negotiations?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, clearly at the beginning of the issue Railtrack looked at a number of options and decided that the option it wished to pursue with the RMT was the package put before the RMT. In addition, the chairman of Railtrack stated publicly that the Government's approach to pay is entirely consistent with his commercial approach to pay in Railtrack.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is right for the Government Co occasionally remind any industry, whether or not in the public sector, that pay restraint is essential if we are to continue with our economic prosperity? Is it not regrettable that Members of the Opposition, not only in this House but also in another place, have not as yet condemned a strike which is unnecessary.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in response to the latter part of my noble friend's question, the messages coming from the party opposite are a little confused on the matter. Some of those seeking leadership are a little coy about whether or not they like strikes; whether they like this one in particular and approve of it; while others are more forthcoming and say that they approve of them. That reminds me of days I thought were long gone by.
With regard to the first part of my noble friend's question, it is right that the Government should make clear to all government-owned bodies funded by public money that they are expected to stay within the broad approach to public sector pay set out last autumn by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would have been better if the Government had made that position clear before the negotiations started rather than, apparently, in the middle?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that last autumn was in the: middle of negotiations. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it perfectly clear last autumn that the approach to public sector pay he wished to see was that any increase in pay should be offset by improvements in productivity; it should be value for money, and there should be no growth in overall pay bills. It cannot be made much clearer than that.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a great deal of history which demonstrates that Ministers' intervention in pay negotiations is seldom successful and almost always extremely expensive for the taxpayer? Does he further agree that the way the negotiations have been conducted from the beginning on the employers' side—though the employers have not been particularly involved—started with negotiations with British Rail? Railtrack then insisted, understandably, that it should take up the negotiations and they started all over again. The Minister then intervened and started us back to square one for the third time. It is naive for the Minister to say that governments are not intervening. Either they should openly conduct the negotiations themselves or, alternatively, they should do what has happened in the past and allow the employer to negotiate with the employees within the budgets approved by the Government.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government are allowing, and indeed encouraging, Railtrack to negotiate a deal with the RMT within the

1271
broad approach to public sector pay which, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was outlined by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Horton indicated that it is entirely consistent with the commercial approach that he is taking at Railtrack. RMT's demand at the beginning was for 11 per cent. without any productivity gains or strings attached. That would have been expensive for the taxpayer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware—as I am sure the whole country is— that the Government intervened at a point when a 5.7 per cent. increase had already been offered to RMT? It had not been agreed but it was at least offered. Is it not true that the Government were completely horrified by the offer and did everything they could to destabilise it? That is in fact what happened. Would not the noble Lord's strictures regarding the necessity for pay restraint in the public sector be rather more appropriate if the Government themselves had not actively connived in colossal pay increases in the public sector quangos largely populated by their own party members?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as regards the latter part of the noble Lord's question, one of the problems of manning in the best possible way those parts of our industry which are still in the public sector is that we have tended in the past not to be prepared to pay the market rate and therefore we did not get the people best suited to run those industries. That has proved very costly for our country. As to the first part of his question, the board of Railtrack looked at a number of options at the start of the negotiations but, as I made perfectly clear at the beginning of my answers today, it decided to go ahead with a package of offers to RMT. The package has three component parts and in the present climate, with the low rate of inflation and looking to the future of the industry, is a very reasonable offer to the signalmen.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the present stance and utterances of the union leadership are hardly conducive to the achievement of a solution and to the removal of the misery of the travelling public?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. If we are to get an efficient and effective railway system on which the customer enjoys travelling the one thing we must do is to put into the past the kind of strikes that we are seeing at the moment on the railway system. All that strikes can do is demonstrate to many of the travelling public that there are alternative ways for them to travel and, once the dispute is over, the railway may find that it has lost some customers forever.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with his experience of the industry, and ask the Minister two straight questions. Does he deny that a figure of 5.7 per cent. was part of the negotiations and was being put forward by Railtrack? Secondly, does he not accept that
1272
the Government did their very best to ensure that that offer of 5.7 per cent. was withdrawn? Those are two straight questions. I hope that we can have straight answers.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, Mr. Horton himself made clear yesterday to the Select Committee in the other place that the board had considered a number of options prior to getting into detailed negotiations. However, as I said a moment ago, it decided to go for a package, the first element of which was a 6 per cent. increase to be self-financing from improved working practices. But it was a package with two other parts to it. The board thought that it was important to go for the whole package and not just part of it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my second question? Did not the Government do their best to persuade Railtrack to withdraw the offer of 5.7 per cent?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the House will know, the Railtrack chairman himself has consistently emphasised that his board never authorised any such offer.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his assurance that the Government did not intervene in the dispute will be of little comfort to the millions who struggled to work this morning for the fourth time in as many weeks? Is there not a case for some kind of government intervention to try to get this dispute settled once and for all? Failure to do so will have an enormous detrimental effect on the economy of this country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness tempts me down a road which—dare I say?—Ministers and governments have been tempted down before and against which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, warned us earlier on. When governments intervene directly in pay talks and negotiate pay talks in order to get a settlement at almost any price, the cost to the economy and to the industry concerned is usually far greater than actually proceeding to a properly negotiated settlement.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what matters is not so much the actual percentage increase offered but the way in which that increase is to be financed? If the increase, whatever it is, leads to higher unit costs, surely that would mean that the fare-paying public would have to pay the bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course it means that, or that the taxpayer would have to pay, or a combination of both. What is important in this negotiation, especially for Railtrack setting out as a new company, is to get rid of some of the practices that have grown up in the industry over the years and to put the signalmen on a proper salaried basis, looking to the efficiencies that can be gained by the modern technology not just for their benefit and for the benefit of the travelling public but, I should have thought, for the benefit of the railway industry as a whole.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I have a genuine inquiry for information purposes. Can the noble Lord tell the House how much of the productivity increases of the signalmen is due to investment and how much to improved practices or greater inconvenience to the signalmen?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that they go together. Some of the improved practices can already be delivered and that is perhaps the first part of the package. The third part of the package relates to restructuring and productivity which can be delivered into the future. Some of that revolves around modern technology and getting away from what are still some very antiquated practices in signal boxes.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not quite clear that it is offensive for a quarter of the present signal staff to be considerably worse off under the Railtrack offer than they are at present? Does not the Minister begin to concede that? Is he not aware that the whole country recognises that the Government have got their fingerprints all over the question of intervention as far as these negotiations are concerned? Therefore, does the Minister agree that it is time for the Government to come clean and to say that they want a settlement, otherwise they will be condemned for the strike, as they deserve to be condemned?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as regards the last sentence of the noble Lord's question, we are getting back to the old philosophy of settling at any price. I should have thought that the history of the 1960s and 1970s shows the fundamental error of that approach. With reference to the specific point about some signalmen facing a pay cut under the package which has been put forward, those are details which ought to be for Railtrack. I understand that Railtrack has said that there will be compensation for those signalmen whose earnings will fall.

Air Pollution by Motor Vehicles
2.52 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps should now be taken to reduce air pollution caused by petrol and oil combustion fumes.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, despite last weekend's pollution episode, pollution from road vehicles is falling as a result of tighter controls on both vehicle emissions and fuel quality. There will continue to be a sustained decline in emissions of pollutants into the early part of the next decade.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that, although pollution is said to be falling, it is still very serious and the number of motor vehicles is ever increasing? Can my noble friend say how soon petrol will be lead free and how long will diesel fuels, which cause the worst pollution, have the tax advantage which they do now?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the replacement cycle for motor vehicles is between 10 years and 15 years and close to 60 per cent. of the cars on the roads today will run on lead-free petrol. However, there will always be a residual need for leaded petrol, for example, for classic car owners. As to the second part of my noble friend's question, matters of taxation are for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the: Exchequer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there are very many premature deaths and illnesses caused by the amount of pollution that we have to put up with today? Would it not be wise for the Government to consider talking to specialists, particularly in the medical profession, who have some thoughts and ideas as to what might be done to combat what is now becoming a very serious issue? I hope that the Government will attempt to talk to people who are concerned about this matter and listen to their ideas, which would need legislation to put into practice in order to reduce pollution and the number of premature deaths.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I draw your Lordships' attention to a discussion paper on air quality standards and management which was published jointly by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment. It is entitled Improving Air Quality. It was issued in March and the consultation period closed at the end of June. We shall be studying the recommendations most carefully.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Viscount indicate whether the Government are considering random kerbside car emission tests as another way of trying to control this problem?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's question on that point. However, I can tell him that there is substantial kerbside testing of lorries and buses.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has my noble friend noted a recent survey by the RAC which suggests that only 10 per cent. of road vehicles in this country are causing a very large proportion of the air pollution from motor vehicles? Are the Government considering any way of dealing with that 10 per cent., which are old vehicles and badly maintained? Will the Government consider how they might be brought up to standard?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lord, we are aware that, based on the results from the Stedman remote sensing gas analyser, Dr. Jeremy Vanke of the RAC has claimed that 10 per cent. of cars produce 50 per cent. of pollution. There are problems with this device which we hope can be overcome. At the moment it is too inaccurate to become part of the legal process. I can assure my noble friend that further measures are; being introduced to give stricter emission limits for diesel vehicles and buses. They will add to those which have come into force since 1993. More cuts will be in place from October 1996.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the Government are not being complacent about this

1275
matter. Is the Minister aware that the estimated death rate from traffic fumes is now 10,500 a year, which is 35 times as many as it is alleged die from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke? Will he take further measures and consider whether the increased use of biofuels might assist the problem? If it is found that they would assist, will the Government do something to reduce the taxes on such fuels to encourage their use?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will continue to seek ways in which pollution from motor cars and buses and other motor vehicles can be reduced. The Government are aware of the environmental benefits, for example, of natural gas as a vehicle fuel. In the short term that may have more potential than, say, electric cars and would be particularly applicable to short-range urban public service vehicles.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, will my noble friend accept the contention that, in discussing the problems caused by the combustion of petrol and oil, we are but discussing the symptoms of an even deeper problem? The real problem is burgeoning humanity with its insatiable appetites. They are the ultimate polluters.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we have recently issued guidance to planning authorities (Document PPG13) on reducing the reliance on motorised transport. That puts forward proposals to reduce the reliance on cars, etc.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister has stated that a few vehicles produce the most pollution. Will he not consider a scheme by which the public can report by telephone the details of offending vehicles?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am pleased to report that we have such a scheme already in process. It has been in place for about two years. There is a document called Reporting Smoky Diesels which includes telephone numbers in various parts of the country where such offences can be reported.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, everybody is aware of the importance of catalytic converters. But is the noble Viscount aware of the appalling smell emitted by these devices, which is worse than the pollution? There is the smell of rotten eggs. Will the Government encourage the motor manufacturers to try to produce a device which does not do that?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am aware of this particular smell. I am not an expert in this sector, but I believe that it does disappear over a period and that it is particularly strong in new vehicles. As the catalyst burns itself in, the smell gets weaker.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that one of the most significant actions which can be taken to reduce pollution is to encourage people to travel by rail rather than by motor car? What steps are the Government taking to replace the senior management of Railtrack to ensure that our railways run seven days a week instead of six days a week?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport has already entered into a debate on these matters. I refer the noble Lord to the previous Question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised an extremely important matter? It is not frivolous; it is a very important matter. Does the noble Viscount further recognise that levels of nitrogen dioxide are getting worse? Concentrations in London, for instance, increased by 17 per cent. in the past year alone. Does the noble Viscount further recognise that we have an asthma crisis in this country? As was revealed in a Written Question in another place, the incidence of asthma in this country has increased by an average of almost 150 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is a serious problem, which is caused by emissions from motor vehicles. Finally, will the noble Viscount take on board the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the RAC, which is a respectable body, fingered 10 per cent. of vehicles as being the cause of the major part of pollution? It is perfectly easy under the equivalent of the Clean Air Acts to eliminate that 10 per cent. when necessary. I hope that the noble Viscount will take that on board.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I take on board all the points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution and the Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes are looking, for the Department of Health, at evidence of the effects of air pollution as it pertains particularly to asthma and other complaints. The results will be published later this year. Obviously, we cannot pre-empt that work, but we shall consider what further action might be needed in the light of those reports. As to the noble Lord's reference to the question from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on the RAC's claim, as I said, we are investigating the matter and the instrument by which the measurements were obtained. If it has any great value, we shall, of course, make use of it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind the certainty that the number of cars will continue to increase and the well-established fact that people's health will continue to suffer from atmospheric pollution caused in such ways, particularly the health of young people, whose nostrils are nearer to the ground and of old people, who are more vulnerable, will the Government consider giving encouragement to the use of alternative sources of fuel, such as natural gas, which has been mentioned?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government are deeply concerned about the levels of pollution and their effects on all people, both old and young. We shall continue to pursue policies to reduce such pollution.

Council of Ministers: Voting Figures
3.2 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their position on the release of voting figures in the Council of Ministers on legislative matters.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, as part of efforts towards greater openness in the European Union, we were active in securing agreement by the Council in December 1993 on procedures for publishing votes. We fully support the arrangements for implementing those procedures.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer and congratulate the Government on the part that they played in opening up the proceedings of the Council of Ministers. However, does she agree that, although people are glad to know how their representatives voted, they would also like to know why? Therefore, does she further agree that the Council of Ministers' considerations of legislative matters should be made public, as are considerations of legislative matters in the British Parliament?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a rare day when the noble Lord congratulates the Government, but I am very happy to accept that we played a part in changing the attitudes of other member states and in gaining this improvement in the publication of votes. As to the reasons for the votes, I am sure that from country to country, even when the vote is the same, the reasons for the vote may be different. It would be difficult for the Council to publish reasons when they are not always given. However, there is absolutely no reason why they should not be revealed in questions. When we hold press conferences at the end of Council meetings, fellow Ministers are only too willing to give reasons. I am sure that that will become the order of the day. However, I must advise the noble Lord that, although the Netherlands, Denmark and we ourselves are very open to that, some other countries are not.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister accept my congratulations also on the progress that she seems to have made on this? Is she aware, however, that we are still a long way from the position that was arrived at in the Edinburgh Council on 12th December 1992? The document that was issued then stated:
"When a formal vote is taken in Council, the record of the vote (including explanations of vote where delegations request these) shall be published."
We are still not much further forward on that. When the Minister refers to the "Council of Ministers", is she including not only the European Council, but also the 30 other Councils which are in session from time to time? The general impression is that there is still far too much secrecy surrounding these proceedings.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I very much sympathise with the noble Lord when he talks about the need for all Councils to be open in the way in which the European Council has become open. The word "Councils" refers to all Councils, not solely to the European Council. It is clear that the moves that we took in Edinburgh in 1992 have slowly become a proper procedure because, when we took the agreement at the last Foreign Affairs Council in December last year that legislative decisions would automatically be published, unless exceptionally the Council decided against publication, that was followed up by the publication of other votes. I can assure the noble Lord—I willingly accept even his congratulations on the fact—that some real progress in this matter has been made thanks to the British.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister will no doubt think that this is a strange day when I say how very much I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I should like to be clear exactly where we are on this issue. As I understand it, a policy change is expected to be announced this week. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is so. That change will be that there is now to be a public, open and formal register of Ministers' votes in the Council of Ministers. That is to be initiated from now, but the voting records from 1989 to 1993 are not to be revealed. Is that the position? I understand that only votes are to be revealed, not the reasons for the voting. That is what I understand to be the position. Can the Minister confirm or deny that position?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can confirm that after discussions at both the Birmingham and Edinburgh Councils in 1992, we now have these major changes. Since December last year, most votes taken in Council have been made public in the press release issued after each meeting but, as I answered before, not the reasons. As far as decisions made before December 1993 are concerned, the agreement that we reached on 6th December was that future votes would be released, not past votes. I do not believe that we could have achieved unanimity on getting such agreement on past votes, even if they could have been found in all the documents. Each member state can obviously declare its own votes before 1993, but it cannot force others to declare theirs. What we have gained is a release of all future voting figures, but not of retrospective declarations.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Trumpington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a. Statement that is to be made in another place on the BBC White Paper.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may draw attention to the Marshalled List on the Bill. On Monday, the fourth Marshalled List ran to 24 pages. Your Lordships sat until after midnight on that day and disposed of seven-and-a-half pages of the Marshalled List. Today's Marshalled List, however, is only two pages less than Monday's; in other words, five-and-a-half pages of amendments have been added in the past 48 hours. We all admire the assiduity of those who have been scrutinising the Bill, but if we go on adding amendments as we go on through the Bill, we shall be sitting on it throughout August.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I of course have the responsibility for answering many of the amendments that are put down, and, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I admire the assiduity with which Members of the Opposition, and, indeed, some of my noble friends, have put down amendments. I am very much in the hands of those who wish to discuss the Bill, but I join with the noble and learned Lord in hoping that our deliberations will not go on for too long. We have some important matters to discuss, but I hope that we can deal with them speedily.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 30 [The 1968 Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: The purpose of debating the clause is to enable the Committee to consider the relationship of the Bill to the Transport Act 1968. It is perhaps only in relation to this matter that we can debate the issue. I do not propose to divide the Committee on it, but I want to compare not just the approaches but some of the details of the two provisions that we are considering today compared with those enacted in 1968.
I concede that the Bill contains some improvements. Indeed, as we have stated from the very first, we are against maintaining on the statute book useless bureaucratic rules which do nothing for anyone, but I submit that in relation to the Bill as a whole, in particular since we are now considering Chapter III, the public is likely to be caused serious prejudice, and there will be a considerable clash with a great deal of the spirit and philosophy underlying the 1968 Act.
Essential safeguards for the general public in relation to safety and the environment, particularly so far as concerns local interests, are being substantially discarded. Those are issues of safety which have their
1280
root in the 1968 Act. We shall debate later, for example, Clause 33, which will remove the right of local residents to object for environmental reasons to licences being granted—something we regard as unacceptable. I mention that now merely as illustrative of the point that I am currently making. Safety provisions affecting heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles, which were controlled strictly by the 1968 Act, will be impaired seriously, if not abandoned altogether. It is illustrative to contrast the approach of those who have framed the Bill and those who framed the 1968 legislation.
The 1968 Act provided for strict controls on heavy goods vehicles, including 16-axle, 38-tonne lorries. They were required to be licensed every five years. The provisions of the Bill that we shall be considering shortly substantially impair that approach. Why was the original provision made? Why the change? I believe that the original provision was introduced to ensure that road hauliers, who do not have a uniformly good record —they did not then and do not today; and I am in no way indicting the substantial body of road hauliers who do conduct their business in the best possible way—had their vehicles investigated properly at specific intervals to ensure that they were maintained properly. That was at least to mitigate—because one cannot wholly avoid them—risks of serious accidents, which of course involve not just the drivers of those vehicles but pedestrians and other third parties. That was the prime reason for the control.
What evidence is there of its substantial failure? Surely it is for the Government to demonstrate that that is the case; that there has been a substantial failure of the rules with which they are now seeking to interfere. It is not enough, surely, that it should merely constitute a burden upon some road hauliers. In my submission, there is no evidence of that kind. This is a system which has worked fairly and well. It has provided a benefit for the public outside the industry and indeed also, I should think, to the larger, reputable road hauliers against the activities of less scrupulous operators, and there are, as I say, still too many of them. Why, then, scrap the regular checks? Why damage the requirements which have been imposed to ensure higher driving standards? Why substitute irregular checks, if indeed there are to be any at all?
All those advantages, I repeat, were conferred by the 1968 Act. So why have the Government embarked upon those changes? Has there been some huge public demand? Did the public give any indication to the department that it wanted the safety and environmental aspects of the legislation to be diminished? Or rather was it because there has been, for some considerable period of time now, intensive lobbying and campaigning by certain elements of the road haulage industry?
That industry, on at least large components of it, has always opposed legislation which has limited its ability to function, despite certain safety and environmental precautions which were plainly needed. Its philosophy was, "Leave it to the market. We will sort it all out. We can deal with malpractices ourselves", even if there was no evidence to support that proposition, as is clearly the case.

1281
The overwhelming evidence is that the industry—the public service vehicle industry—has been resistant to change on too many occasions. That has included also, I have to say, the car industry. I witnessed that when I was dealing with transport and environmental issues as a member of the European Commission. The car industries of Britain, France, Spain and Italy were against the anti-pollution controls that the Commission wished to introduce back in 1985 and 1986. The road haulage industry was against the proposition that the Commission advanced—I know, because I did it—in respect of reasonable driving hours and rest periods. Indeed, it used its best endeavours to persuade the Government, and other governments too, to ensure that there was in reality little possibility of proper investigation of breaches of the rules that had obtained until 1985, and to ensure too that the rules that were to be enacted later would have very little value. That of course is why the European Commission is reconsidering rest periods and drivers' hours—a high priority, I should have thought, against the backcloth of serious accidents that prevails in Europe, including this country. Perhaps I may add in parenthesis that 12 member states decided to avoid supporting the Commission's proposal, which would have applied much stricter requirements, and instead went for a more permissive set of regulations. Those regulations have not worked and have not been capable of proper enforcement.
Sadly, I believe that essentially the Government's proposals are an industry-led concession. Public safety and the protection of the environment are sacrificed for some cost savings to the industry, which are marginal in any event. According to the briefing document that was prepared by the House of Commons Library, transport managers "dread" the five-yearly renewal of operator licences. They represent an undue burden—I quote the Minister who the other day adopted that phrase—on industry.
What a contrast in approach between the 1968 Act and these highly partial provisions. It is truly an example of the allegations which we have made of an unprecedented, heavily biased task force representing only one interest and setting the agenda for the Government to make up their mind on these proposals. That is all that the Government have listened to. As we have said, it has never been denied that the industry has subscribed heavily to the Tory Party's funds, and it is now getting its reward.
Lord Harlech: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It is of interest that over the past 25 years, under the different genders of political administration, road haulage has increased and now accounts for 84 per cent. of our transport—the freight that is delivered to our shops, factories and therefore industries. It is not appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to believe that road transport should be discriminated against increasingly by statute, because it is carrying 84 per cent. of our freight to every outlet that the public requires, whether factory or shop.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. The logic of his intervention
1282
was to suggest not only that road haulage should not be discriminated against, although I am not sure what he means by that—
Lord Harlech: With respect, we have GVQs and roadside checks. A policeman and two officials from the traffic commission can stop any vehicle at any time. That is a regular occurrence in road transport operations. One is eligible to be stopped and checked at any time, whether for emissions or whatever else.
The business of emissions was somewhat unclear. When we are checked—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may—
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have not finished yet.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: We are getting a little out of our procedural way—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Will my noble friend Lord Harlech accept that we should all like to hear what he has to say? Perhaps he would like to make a speech when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has finished his. I believe that the Committee will agree that his was not an intervention but perhaps the beginning of a somewhat lengthy speech. May we hear what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has to say? If we do not agree with him —and I shall not—we shall have an opportunity later to debate with him.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful for the characteristically helpful attitude displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. For some time he and I have been involved in the small transport consortium in this place —and when he was a Minister and I was a Commissioner—and I always welcome help from that quarter.
I may forget later, so it is as well to respond now to what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said. He appeared to be suggesting that we should sweep away all the terrible infringements on the freedom of road hauliers. I do not understand that the Government's intentions are to achieve that, so his quarrel must be with the Minister—
Lord Harlech: If the noble Lord—
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, I shall not give way again because I should get into trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, if I were even to think of it.
The Government assert that they are merely seeking to streamline the system of management. I do not believe that to be true. I believe that it will be infinitely more difficult to procure evidence for prosecutions, because regular licensing represents a key safeguard in the system of enforcement. That is our submission and we shall deal with it in detail later.
What has been the reaction of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation? The Government say that they are under no obligation to consult the Police Federation. I wonder whether that is always the case and that they never consult the federation. I do not believe that to be the case. I understand that, while supporting some of the

1283
Government's contentions, the Association of Chief Police Officers is most anxious about this element. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that.
The trouble is that there is a growing problem with falling standards in the road haulage sector. Let us take, for example, the annual report of the licensing authority which was issued recently. It depicted that the number of cases considered by the licensing review boards, which monitor the performances of operators who fail to reach the required standards, increased by a massive 56 per cent. compared with the previous year. The number of refusals of operator licence renewals showed a 50 per cent. increase on the previous year. Therefore, there is a great deal of evidence that, as a result of the current economic climate, road haulage operators have been under considerable pressure to cut their costs. Many have done so by reducing their maintenance costs and taking a chance on running unsafe vehicles, which represents a clear threat to public safety.
The industry—and almost without question the Government accept what the industry says—asserts that there would be cost savings of £2.6 million. But what is the cost which is not contained in balance sheets? What is the cost to the public in terms of any impairment of safety and of the environment? A few moments ago we heard a little about damage to the environment by vehicular traffic. What will be the costs of the enforcement that is to be undertaken by local authorities, the police, the vehicles' inspectorate and the licensing review boards? Will they outweigh the savings to operators? Will the costs of enforcement simply be transferred from the operator to those bodies?
Anxiety has also been expressed by the European Commission in its White Paper on a common transport policy. It stated:
"The road haulage industry is characterised by barriers to entry leading to a relatively large number of small operators trading alongside a smaller number of large ones".
The White Paper states as one of its priorities for action that the conditions for access to the profession should be re-examined, as well as the regimes for compliance with licensing conditions and for road worthiness testing of vehicles. That priority should be supported in this country and not negated, and I believe that that will be achieved at least in part by this Bill.
Unduly low costs for transporting goods, occasioned by cutting corners and avoiding certain essential costs, are designed to promote road transport to the disadvantage of more environmentally friendly modes of transport. That, in part, is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech.
I believe that the approach that has been adopted by the Government in that chapter of the Bill is not conducive to the public interest. It should never have appeared before us in the first place. Therefore, we oppose that approach.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Harlech: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. I understand that the road haulage industry is highly regulated. Perhaps he will tell me what his government did in the 17 years in
1284
which they were in power to substantiate the railway industry in order to take freight off the roads and not encourage the road transport industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We did very much more than the present Government. But I should get into desperate trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, if I were to embark upon a debate about the railway industry.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord is right. We are in danger of having a general debate on the road haulage industry, and I do not believe that this chapter of the Bill is quite the right vehicle for that.
I take a somewhat different view from that taken by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am going to use this opportunity of a round-robin debate on the present clause so that I do not have to bob up and down as we go through the multitude of amendments to be discussed later this afternoon. I believe that I can say all that I want to say in one go. But it is necessary to challenge one or two remarks made by the noble Lord opposite.
I was rather surprised by the condemnatory tone which he took in relation to the haulage industry which, by and large, has served the nation fairly well. He asked the Government to explain to him where is the substantial failure of the rules contained in the 1968 Act which occasioned this change of heart and deregulation of the regime. It is not for the Government to demonstrate any failure of the rules at all. This Bill is not about the failure of rules. It is about deregulation and removing unnecessary burdens from industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister referred to undue burdens, but that phrase is not contained in the Bill. I hope that he will accept the incorporation into the Bill of the word "undue" or "unreasonable", but at the moment we are merely considering burdens.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I slipped into a trap and I beg the Committee's pardon for so doing. I should have referred to the removal of burdens. That is what this legislation is about.
The noble Lord is wrong to suggest that the provisions will eliminate regular inspections. They do nothing of the sort. The O-level licence holder is still subject to regular and random inspections so that there is no diminution of the safety element which is part of the inspection scheme.
The road haulage industry is not resistant to change; and it never has been. In its own view, it is certainly paying its own track costs. It is meeting pollution damages through the taxation system. This chapter of the Bill essentially removes the necessity to reapply for a licence at every fifth year. It does not mean in any way that the traffic commissioners cannot make changes to existing licences in terms of revocation and other conditions, which was an element of the 1968 Act. Those provisions will remain when this Bill passes into an Act.
Therefore, I do not understand what the noble Lord is grumbling about. There is no evidence that safety is threatened by the provisions of the Bill. Precisely the same enforcement levels can be maintained by police, trading standards officers and the commissioners. Indeed, the computerised system now employed means

1285
that traffic commissioners have almost instantaneous information of every transgression, whether in relation to the vehicle or the licence, wherever it may take place in the United Kingdom.
I cannot see what lies behind the series of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It seems to me that they are an undisguised attack on the road haulage industry. They seek to impose even further controls which will achieve very little, whereas the Bill seeks to remove unnecessary burdens on—in this case—the road haulage industry.
Lord Skelmersdale: I should like to look at the problem from a slightly different angle. As I said on Second Reading, I have the honour to sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Every year the Department of Transport produces an instrument to increase the costs of operators' licences. Recently, various members of the committee had occasion to query that and I am glad to say that those queries were answered satisfactorily by the Department of Transport.
I understand that in recent years the licences have changed from three-year to five-year licences. They cost several thousands of pounds. Although the Joint Committee is prevented by its standing orders from considering policy, individual members of the committee are bound to ask themselves from time to time what is the need for that licensing requirement.
When listening to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on the one hand and my noble friend Lord Lucas on the other, it seems to me that the best way to attack the offending vehicle and licence holder for transgressing any pollution, road safety or other regulation which inevitably is attached to road transport of whatever size is through the vehicle itself.
Of course we all recognise the continuing need for licensing authorities to be able to check on operators and their activities at any time. But I have gone through the Bill fairly carefully, as other Members of the Committee must have done, and I can find nothing in it which prevents that continuing to happen.
Furthermore, Clause 34 adds specifically to the 1968 Act conditions for securing road safety. We should consider that and involve ourselves in that rather more. We should not concern ourselves with the five-yearly operator's licence. I still accept that there must be an operator's licence and that, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, operators must be checked on from time to time. But I do not see why that has to take place at quite such regular intervals. Perhaps we can be told.
Lord Monkswell: In rising to support my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I should like to put forward a slightly different view on the matter. However, it is also different from that expressed by other speakers. I should like to concentrate on the historical and technological context of the legislation and the proposals now before the Committee. We have only to think back to the 1960s to realise that there was a burgeoning increase in the use of road haulage for freight because of technological changes and the cheapness of oil vis-à-vis the railways and the development of different industrial, commercial and residential styles of living and working.
1286
I believe that we should talk about two industries; namely, the road haulage industry and the manufacturing industry which supplies the vehicles. Both industries were fragmented, if I may put it that way, in that there was a large number of road haulage operators in effectively rather small units. That situation also characterised the manufacture of road haulage vehicles. If that situation, whereby the industry began to develop and expand rapidly because of the changes in technology and in the price of oil and so on, had been allowed to continue unregulated, grave problems would have arisen.
Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee one example of what I mean. I worked in the road haulage industry in the 1960s. I can remember being told by one of the drivers that it was a regular occurrence for the big ends of his engine to fail while he was driving along the road. He would then have to park, dismantle the engine sump and replace the big end shells, scraping them in and fitting the engine back together again. Such a job took several hours to complete. Then he would get back in the cab and continue his journey. If we can imagine such a situation multiplied a thousandfold occurring on our motorway system, not only would there be a problem for the road haulage industry but, if lorries were continually breaking down on the side of the motorway, there would also be a problem for the whole of society. We would, indeed, have a real problem.
I am not saying that the 1968 Act effectively prevented such things happening. However, it was part of the process of regulating the industry to ensure that modem technology was implemented and that both the manufacturing industry and the road haulage industry invested in modern equipment. But what has changed between the 1960s and the 1990s? As has already been said, we now have a situation where a very high proportion of freight in this country is carried by road. We have a vastly extended motorway system compared with that which we had 30 years ago.
There have been changes; but probably the most significant change has been in terms of the manufacturing scene. I believe we all recognise the fact that there are far fewer manufacturers of road haulage vehicles these days than there were 30 years ago. By and large, that has been beneficial in the sense that there has been the ability to invest in economies of scale which have reduced the price of vehicles comparatively and enabled the introduction of new technology.
There is one further interesting question. What is likely to happen as a result of deregulation? We can look at another area of deregulation; namely, the buses. That deregulation had, by and large, one or two positive aspects; but it also had some quite horrendous negative aspects. One of the things that happened as a result of that deregulation was the introduction and the use of smaller buses. I have in mind the smaller buses that run around our suburbs picking up people and taking them to their destinations. That was a positive result of deregulation in that it created the conditions to enable the industry to invest in what was effectively an aspect of new technology—a new type of bus.
I believe we all recognise that horrendous problems also arose because of that deregulation, one of which

1287
was the use by operators of old and, indeed, quite decrepit buses in the hope, effectively, of making a fast buck. Some operators undercut their competitors by not investing in modern machinery, effective maintenance regimes, and so on. That created problems for the industry and introduced unfair competition as regards the better operators. It also created problems for the travelling public in the sense that people have had to put up with some fairly arduous riding conditions, if I may put it that way. Moreover, environmental pollution has been aggravated.
One of the side effects of bus deregulation is that drivers now park their buses in the centre of Manchester at the bus station without switching off their engines. That is because they have such a struggle in starting them up. Therefore, we have many buses parked in the centre of Manchester during their turn-around time with their engines running. That has introduced a pollution problem not just for passengers but also for people living in the centre of Manchester.
What is likely to be the result of the deregulation proposed by the Government? If it will produce just a marginal saving of cost to the operators, then we need to ask the further question: what will be the downside? If the Government can point to the possibility of new technology, new methods of working and the introduction of new investment into the industry as a result of changing the regulatory regime, that might be a positive reason for going for it. But if we look at the vehicle haulage industry, it can be seen that, basically, the only major significant change on the books at present is the increase in the vehicle weight regulation. There are other reasons in this country why the latter is not a feasible proposition. Indeed, we only need to think of the standard of bridges, and so on, that would have to be upgraded to allow for such an increase in the weight restriction. I am not aware of any significant changes in that respect. I see that a noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Harlech: I am much obliged. I wish to intervene for just a moment. It is evident to me that we are discussing in great detail an historical issue. As I have already stated, 84 per cent. of our freight is now carried by road. That is due to the non-investment in rail freight over many years through different genders of government. Indeed, we now have to control lorries. As regards operators, we now have annual testing and also random testing in lay-bys which can take place at any time during a 24-hour period. The rest of it is up to the Government. The fact that we continue to discuss such a matter is a reality of kinetic energy that we have given business, and therefore our distribution of that technology to road freight. We have done it both Europewide and nationwide.
Lord Monkswell: I understand what the noble Lord is saying; but the implication of his remarks is that the road haulage industry is discriminated against in terms of the regulatory regime. I suggest that that is not really the case because if one looks at other mechanisms of
1288
transporting goods, one can see that the railways, for example, are heavily regulated and circumscribed with rules and regulations. The fact that it tends to be all within the one industry does not do away with the fact that there are people checking the tracks and the trains to ensure that safety and environmental regimes are met. The air transport industry is also heavily regulated to ensure that safety, anti-pollution and other requirements are met. Therefore it is not right to say that the road haulage industry is particularly penalised in terms of the regulatory regime. In concluding my remarks at this point, I must say that I support my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I would ask the Government what benefits society will achieve by changing the regulatory regime as they are proposing at the moment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe there has been a certain amount of ingenuity shown in having a debate on a single line clause with regard to the 1968 Act. I shall resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, down memory lane. I am sure many Members of the Committee remember motoring in the old days. My recollection is that every spring and autumn one had to flush out the car radiator to remove or to put in anti-freeze. However, I shall not comment on that any further.
I turn to the question that I was originally asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, as regards the 1968 Act, to which of course this clause refers. That Act provided in Part V a licensing system for the operators of goods vehicles used for the carriage of goods for hire or reward, or in the course of a trade or business. The purposes of the system are to help to ensure road and vehicle safety, to provide level terms of competition between operators, and to control the use of operating centres. The changes proposed in Chapter III of Part I of this Bill, to which this clause is the introduction, are concerned mainly with the procedures which have to be followed by operators who wish to remain in the industry. They also simplify and clarify, partly by minor consolidation, some of the provisions so that licence-holders can be more certain what their licences do and do not authorise them to do.
The main deregulation provided by Chapter III is to move from the present system of licences granted for a maximum of five years to a system of continuous licensing. We believe that the current system is unnecessary and a costly administrative burden on operators. They have to apply for fresh licences whether or not they are making material changes in their operation.
I shall give the Committee some idea of the unnecessary burden this represents. I can tell the Committee that in 1992–93, out of 14,500 applications for replacement licences, all but 250 resulted in fresh licences being granted in the terms which had been applied for. Out of that 250, 90 were refused outright and the remainder were granted on reduced terms. None of the 90 refusals and only a handful of the licences granted on reduced terms were for reasons associated with the suitability of operating centres.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in supporting the five year provision, pointed to the research

1289
document in the House of Commons Library which he said stated that transport managers dread the licensing system. In fact, the document states that transport managers dread the bureaucratic burden of the licensing system. It is that bureaucracy that we are tackling but we are leaving the system substantially in place. The cost to the operator every five years is considerable. For example, it costs over £100 for each of the advertisements the operator must place in the press when he applies to renew his licence. From the consultations we undertook on our proposals for the deregulation of operator licensing, we know that the provisions of this part of the Bill will be welcome to the industry. We have also recognised the fears that some other interested parties have for the environment, safety and the control of operators and their operating centres, and we have provided appropriate safeguards.
We recognise the continuing need for licensing authorities to be able to check on operators and their activities at any time notwithstanding the change to continuous licensing. There is nothing in the Bill which would undermine the licensing authorities' powers in this regard. Applications for licences by new operators and for major variations to existing licences would still be subject to full scrutiny, with an opportunity for objections and representations to be made by interested parties following the publication and advertisement, as appropriate, of the details of the application. There would be an opportunity for the licensing authority to review operating centres at five-yearly intervals to ensure their continued suitability and to attach or vary conditions or, in certain cases, remove an operating centre altogether.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth quite rightly pointed out that there would be no change in the licensing authorities' ability at any time to investigate any operator causing concern, to check on required standards and to take disciplinary action.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale pointed out there would be no change to the role of the vehicle inspectorate in technical checking at operating centres and at the roadside on vehicle standards, tachographs, overloading, and so on. Other provisions of this chapter are aimed at making more detailed and some minor changes to the provisions of the 1968 Act to make the current system work better overall. We have also taken the opportunity to consolidate some of the provisions.
I sum up and, I hope, allay some of the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We believe that Chapter III should make the system of goods vehicle operator licensing less burdensome on operators without in any way reducing safety controls or environmental standards. As my noble friend Lord Harlech rightly pointed out, this is an important industry as regards the whole basis of our economy and I think it is only right that we try to get the balance of these things correct and do not allow the balance to tilt one way or the other.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that intervention. He is always sweetly reasonable. However, at the end of the day one has to uncover the tinsel a little. I simply do not accept—he would not expect me to do so—the caveat which he just entered
1290
about the qualifications and the safeguards that are still being maintained and all the rest of it. I, too, agree this is a question of balance. I do not underestimate the value of this industry. It is an important industry which should be encouraged. However, at the same time I do not believe that the balance should be tilted in the way the Government are tilting it. It is not only I who take this view. There is a well-known journal entitled Motor Transport which states:
"In the UK just about anybody is welcome"—
as regards entry to the industry. The article continues:
"The UK's licensing authorities seem reluctant to revoke licences and effective disciplinary action is far too rare".
—that is even under the existing system—
"And, faced with these relaxed attitudes, what does the Government do? It sets out hellbent to get rid of every device designed to keep up standards of safety and operation".
I do not quite go so far as that; but that is what Motor Transport had to say about that particular matter. In another editorial on 27th January Motor Transport stated,
"the Department of Transport is showing signs that it has not quite thought through this deregulation drive.
Some impending regulations have already been exposed as farcical"—
Those are the Government's regulations.
"Take the plans for vehicle height restrictions, for example. Firms operating vehicles over 4.88m will have to give local authorities two days' notice before every truck movement. Transport companies have condemned this; trade associations have warned firms will be forced out of the business; and local authorities are unsure if they will have the manpower even to check proposed routes. Yet these rules are due to come into force at any time".
I am not sure whether they have come into force by now. The article continues:
"What is the point of killing tiresome rules and replacing them with equally irksome regulations"?
The article states:
"the Government must encourage the growth of professional firms that work legally and discourage cowboys. Remember, moves to cut red tape will make life easier for professionals. But they will also make it easier for the cowboys".
That is the anxiety expressed by Motor Transport, which is a respected journal. That is the difference between the two approaches: that of the Government and that of this side of the House.
This has been a useful debate. I thank those Members of the Committee who participated. However, as I indicated, I do not intend to press the matter to a Division.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: This may be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Future of the BBC
4 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the future of the BBC which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. The Statement is as follows:

1291
"I should like to make a statement about the future of the BBC. I am today publishing a White Paper with the Government's policies for the BBC's role and operations after December 1996, when its present Royal Charter expires. A copy of the White Paper, with a user friendly summary, will be available in the Vote Office when I have finished speaking.
"In developing these policies we have been able to take account of advice, ideas and comments from a wide variety of sources. We had the replies from many organisations and individuals to the Government's consultation document, published in November 1992. I am grateful to everyone who wrote to us, and especially to those who arranged conferences and seminars so that the issues could be discussed. The BBC put forward its own views about its future, which provided a useful focus for public debate, and it has continued to develop its proposals, taking account of the debate about its future and changes in the world of broadcasting.
"We also had the benefit of the National Heritage Select Committee's report on the future of the BBC, which was published in December last year. The committee took evidence from a large number of interested parties. The White Paper includes the Government's response to the Select Committee's report and its recommendations. I have, of course, not yet had time to consider the Select Committee's report on sports sponsorship and television coverage, which was published earlier today. Its views on listed events and subscription channels have attracted a great deal of interest and the Government will take careful note of them. The White Paper acknowledges that the present restrictions are necessary and that there are arguments for strengthening them.
"Our consultation document made it clear that the Government saw a continuing role for the BBC as the major public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom. But new opportunities are being created by technological developments. The Government believe that the BBC is well-placed to evolve into an international multi-media enterprise, building on its present commercial services in this country and overseas. We will do all we can to encourage this process.
"The responses to our consultation document showed that there is considerable public support for the wide range and diversity of the programmes and services which the BBC provides for audiences throughout the United Kingdom. However, public support for the BBC would diminish unless the corporation could demonstrate that it was cost effective.
"The BBC has, in the last few years, set in hand extensive, and often painful, measures to improve its efficiency, reducing its overheads and reorganising its operations. It is in the midst of a difficult process of modernisation, which the Government expect to continue in the years ahead. The results so far are encouraging. As a broadcaster, the BBC has been able to invest over £100 million more in
1292
programmes. As an organisation, it can face the future with more flexibility and with a clearer view of how its various activities contribute to fulfilling its strategic purpose—to provide broadcast services of information, entertainment and education.
"In the light of this, the Government will recommend that the BBC should be granted a new Royal Charter for a term of 10 years from January 1997. A new agreement between the Government and the BBC would govern its operations; this would replace the present licence and agreement.
"The new Royal Charter will set out the responsibilities of the governors and the national councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The board of governors will have a strategic oversight of the BBC's activities and management. The governors and the national councils will have a special responsibility for ensuring that the BBC's services reflect the interests and needs of the public throughout the country, and for improving the BBC's accountability to its audience and to Parliament.
"Within the United Kingdom, the BBC should continue to take a lead in programme making and to provide its present television and radio services. These will be funded from the licence fee, at least for the time being. The Select Committee, after considering all the options, concluded that the licence fee was the best available method of funding the BBC's services. The Government agree with that view. However, we propose there should be a review of funding from the licence fee before the year 2001 in the light of technological and other changes.
"The BBC will, of course, continue to be editorially independent and we shall expect it to maintain high standards in all its programming. Like other broadcasters, it will continue to have obligations to observe due impartiality on controversial issues and to ensure programmes do not encourage crime or offend against good taste, decency or public feeling.
"Overseas, the BBC will continue to broadcast World Service Radio, financed by grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This service has over 130 million listeners and is widely recognised for the reliability and accuracy of its news.
"This reputation is an asset of great value, both culturally and commercially. The Government consider that the BBC should be encouraged to exploit further its commercial potential.
"The main changes we propose for the future are, therefore, aimed at the development of the BBC's commercial activities, particularly its international television services. As the Select Committee recognised, a new and expanding global market is opening up for broadcasting services. Broadcasting has been transformed from a mainly national to an international activity. Moreover, broadcasting, as we have known it, is likely to become only one strand in an international media market, which will include some services and products which combine elements of different media—sound, pictures and text— allowing the users to decide which they prefer. These

1293
developments will greatly extend the variety and choice available to everyone in this country and elsewhere.
"The BBC is well placed to take advantage of this growing international market: it is well known internationally; it has highly skilled production staff, a large production capacity and considerable programme archives; and it has experience of operating commercially at home and abroad.
"However, we should not risk licence payers' or taxpayers' money on commercial ventures. That is why we have encouraged the BBC to forge new partnerships with the private sector. In this way, it can take advantage of the private finance initiative and of the commercial expertise of its private sector partners. Understandably, the BBC is anxious that these partnerships should allow the BBC to keep editorial control over its programmes. This will help it to protect its brand name, which is recognised world-wide.
"The Government believe the BBC should compete commercially, but it must also compete fairly. The BBC has published a commitment to fair trading and is preparing detailed guidelines. We shall want to examine these guidelines closely and ensure that they are implemented effectively. For this reason, it is essential that its services financed from the licence fee and the grant-in-aid should be operated separately from its commercial activities.
"We are exploring with the BBC various options for the future of its transmission services. These include privatisation, in full or in part. The BBC is preparing for an early introduction of digital broadcasting services for radio and then for television. Digital technology is more efficient in the use of the frequency spectrum and opens up the possibility of even more services. It also offers opportunities to United Kingdom manufacturers of equipment and receivers.
"The purpose of these studies, which should be completed towards the end of the year, is to seek to combine the early introduction of digital broadcast-ing services with the advantages of privatisation. These include the benefits of private sector finance, since the Government do not intend to increase the licence fee to pay for introducing digital services. The Government and the BBC are clear that functions should be kept within the BBC only when there is a compelling reason for doing so.
"Although we intend that the BBC should continue to be established by Royal Charter, a number of the Government's proposals will require legislation. When there is a suitable opportunity, we propose to repeal the provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 which prevent the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority from licensing services owned, or partly owned, by the BBC. In future, any commercial broadcasting services operated by the BBC would have to be licensed by the commission or the authority. More generally, we intend to give the commission and the authority new powers to license and regulate commercial digital television and radio services. Reflecting a widespread
1294
concern over standards, we also propose to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. This will provide a clearer focus for the public's complaints about broadcasting services and reducing the number of regulatory bodies.
"The Government recognise that in the BBC the United Kingdom has an organisation which is a world leader. It makes more programmes than any organisation outside the United States and Japan. Over 99 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom can receive its services and most people use them regularly. From the perspective of my own department, no other organisation provides such active and creative patronage of the arts or does so much to make major national and artistic events and the cultural heritage of the country' accessible to everyone.
"In the next 10 years there are likely to be significant and rapid changes in broadcasting and the media generally. No one can foresee now the outcome of these changes, either nationally or internationally, but it is clear that they offer huge opportunities both for the BBC and for other United Kingdom broadcasters.
"The Government wish the BBC to be in a position to take advantage of these opportunities. Our policies keep a wide range of options open for the BBC's long-term future. We confirm its role as the United Kingdom's major public service broadcaster, but we are encouraging it to develop into a multi-media enterprise, with international interests. That prospect is reflected in the title of our White Paper: The Future of the BBC: Serving the Nation; Competing World-wide." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to react to the Statement on the White Paper and to ask a few preliminary questions on the issues that it addresses. Our response today obviously can be no more than a very general reaction. We shall all need to study the White Paper in detail before we can offer a considered view.
One's first impression is of welcome and relief. The Government appear minded to avoid some of the perilous pitfalls into which their ideology might have impelled them. It is a relief to know that the Royal Charter is safe for the foreseeable future; that the corporation will continue at least for the time being—I refer to paragraph 9—to be funded largely by the licence fee; that it will not be forced to seek or accept advertising; and that the Government recognise the worldwide significance of its work. It is the voice of this country at its best. Other countries have always admired it and striven to imitate it. It is good that the Government are today paying public tribute to that fact.
Above all, it appears that the Government have dropped the iniquitous idea of privatising as much as possible of the BBC. In the days of the Thatcher Administration that was always a threat, and to many of

1295
us a nightmare. It now seems to have vanished over the horizon of history. For thus much we must thank the Government and also the corporation, because since the 1980s the BBC has worked tirelessly to retain its right to an index-linked licence fee, its role as a public service broadcaster and its spread of national and local radio channels. We must all commend the convincing clarity of the vision which the BBC achieved in its 1992 document, Extending Choice. Well done, Mr. Birt; that worked.
After one's relief, one's second impression is that the Statement is silent on a number of things, like the dog that did not bark. Almost nothing is said about that widely discussed proposal to sell off the BBC's complete transmitter network. It is simply here an option. There is no evaluation of the highly controversial producers' choice initiative which has wrought such administrative havoc within the corporation and produced so little effect outside it. There is no consideration of the central question of what should be the critical mass of inhouse production which the BBC must retain if its ideas are to be fulfilled. Similarly, the role and extent of the BBC's training programme are not discussed. Neither is the byzantine reticulation of the corporation's accountability struc-ture, which now, I believe, includes more than 60 advisory councils. Perhaps other noble Lords will echo my concerns at those lacunae and perhaps the noble Baroness will give us further and better particulars when she responds to our questions.
There are six specific questions arising out of the Statement on which I seek her help. First, what plans do the Government have for the future of the BBC's transmission network? Is its future secure for the next 10 years; or is it up for grabs and privatisation forthwith? The Statement is not clear about that.
Secondly, why have the Government said little and done less about the BBC management's failure to respond to the complaints and dissatisfaction of its own staff? Morale in the corporation has never been lower. Staff have been driven to take strike action; and yet Ministers seem to have been strangely silent. Why?
Thirdly, what have the Government done to encourage the BBC to develop its unique educational role, from children's TV right through to the Open University? Fourthly, what incentives can the Government offer the BBC to develop its training programmes, as the central provider for the audio-visual industry in this country? The corporation has unique experience and that experience ought to be developed and marketed.
Fifthly, should not the Government advise the BBC to simplify its accountability and user representation structures? It is not enough simply to merge the BSC and the BBC. At the present moment, with 60 advisory councils, there is real danger of the tail wagging the dog. Sixthly, can the noble Baroness tell the House anything more about the new agreement between the Government and the BBC in paragraph 7 of the Statement? Could the review of the licence fee which is mentioned in paragraph 9 take place as early as this year or next? All we are told is that it will be "before the year 2001".
1296
Until these questions can be answered and the issues they represent be seriously addressed, we can only be cautious in our welcome for what we have heard. The Government's record on broadcasting has not been good. The Broadcasting Act 1990 has been singularly unsuccessful for everyone except the Treasury, and the Statement now tells us of further tinkering to come. So we remain sceptical about the Government's understanding of the timing, the depth and the structure of the media revolution through which we are passing. But we on these Benches, we in the Labour Party, can say to the Government this afternoon: "So far, so good. Now trust the BBC to hold fast to all that is good. Tell everyone that the BBC is one of Britain's greatest gifts to the world. Stop digging it up by the roots all the time to see whether it is still growing and, for the brief period in which you remain in office, let it alone".
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I thank the Minister for reading the Statement made in another place. She mentioned that the White Paper is user friendly. I am not wholly sure that the Statement was user friendly. It was not friendly to her throat, and we are grateful to her for reading it in the painstaking way she did.
On these Benches we warmly welcome the fact that the Government have abandoned their anti-BBC attitudes of the 1980s. In the Statement which has just been made, they now recognise,
"that, in the BBC, the United Kingdom has an organisation which is a world leader".
Those words are music in the ears of many of us in your Lordships' House. But we note that the commitment in the Statement to continuing the licence funding carries the rather ominous qualification,
"at least for the time being".
I give the Minister warning that on these Benches we shall continue to be vigilant to make sure that there is no government backsliding on that aspect.
I also wish to pay tribute—perhaps not a totally unqualified tribute but a real one nevertheless—to the BBC leadership for facing up, in a rather self-indulgent organisation of prima donnas, to agonising and controversial changes in order to modernise its management practices. The BBC leadership deserve credit for the courage it has shown in that direction.
The Statement noted that a number of the proposals involve legislative changes. Do the Minister and the Government agree that the renewal of the BBC licence and charter should be the occasion for a comprehensive review of broadcasting policy and for a new and better broadcasting Act which would deal with the many anomalies left by the last Broadcasting Act, including such issues as cross-media ownership, the financing of Channel 4, the matter of listed sporting events and so on?
Finally, the Minister mentioned regulatory changes. We will want to study in detail what she proposes, but perhaps I may remind her that the purpose of broadcasting policy and broadcasting regulation is not to regulate in the interests of the broadcasters but to regulate in the interests of the viewers and listeners. Their interests ought to be paramount.

1297
Against that background—I put the matter diffidently and tentatively—is it not at least worth considering the case for a single office of public broadcasting with the task of independently ensuring that both the BBC and its various services and all the commercial broadcasting services, radio and television, of this country fulfil the public service obligations that they have in their various licences?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for the welcome which they generally gave to the White Paper. I seem to have a great many more than six questions to answer from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and thankfully only two from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
The first question of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, concerned the BBC education services, and of course education is one of the BBC's primary roles. The White Paper underlines that and focuses the BBC's attention in school programmes on the requirements of the national curriculum. It must consult the educational community on its output. But that is an important part of the BBC's role.
An equally important part is the BBC's research role, and it is vital that it takes the lead in research and training. Continuation of the licence fee will allow it to invest in the future. Why only five more years of the licence fee, asked the noble Lord, Lord Morris. There is no immediate prospect of a suitable replacement for the licence fee. However, with rapid developments in services and technology over the next few years, we want to keep the options open. We need to strike a balance between medium-term security and finding the best approach for the future. I noted the warning by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that he would be keeping his eagle eye on the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked me whether the Government had backtracked from their commitment to privatising transmission. The answer is no, we still see advantages in privatising the BBC's transmission services in whole or in part. It would allow more intensive use to be made of transmission infrastructure and the injection of private finance to pay for the introduction of digital broadcasting technology. But we are looking at it in the context of developments in technology and in markets and we expect to reach a decision by the end of the year.
Is not producer choice an expensive bureaucratic exercise? That was the gist of the noble Lord's next question. My answer is no, it has led to greater efficiency and produced savings which have been able to be ploughed back into programmes, as I said.
On the question of a public service broadcasting authority commissioning programmes from all broad-casters, there is considerable merit in having broadcasters with different sources of revenue. In the past few years there have been moves towards stronger links between broadcasting and programme-making and this will be lost if public service broadcasting was the responsibility of a separate body which did not make programmes itself.
1298
The morale of the staff, I think, is an understandable point, and I understand why BBC staff may have felt threatened by changes which were necessary to improve the BBC's efficiency and bring its management practices up to modern standards. However, I believe that staff are now seeing the benefit of those changes in the form of a stronger and more effective BBC.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, also asked how about revising the Broadcasting Act completely. Changes in technology and in broadcasting markets will require some changes to legislation. We are considering what amendments are necessary as part of our review of cross-media ownership. We will keep an open mind on what is necessary.
The final question from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, was: has forcing the BBC to take independent productions reduced the quality of its programmes? Independent producers have been able to contribute new and innovative programmes that have enriched the diversity of the BBC's programming. We will continue to encourage the BBC, where possible, to extend its commissions from independent producers throughout the country.
Perhaps I may turn to the two points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. The noble Lord asked when the licence fee will be reviewed. It will be reviewed in good time to reach conclusions before the end of 1996. The noble Lord's other question was: is the ITC effective as a regulator? My reply to that is that the ITC has shown recently that it is not afraid to criticise commercial broadcasters. Its ultimate sanction is to revoke a broadcaster's licence. It is wholly appropriate that the ITC should regulate the BBC's commercial services in the future.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend has done the House very good service in repeating this enormously important Statement. But I would like to ask her whether the Government will go a little further and arrange for an early debate in this House on the many very important issues that arise. It would be a great pity if the House were to rise for the Summer Recess without the very considerable body of knowledge on broadcasting and its problems which is to be found in this House being given an opportunity for expression. I urge upon my noble friend that she and the usual channels, whatever inconvenience it might mean for their arrangements, will arrange for a full day before the House rises to be given to discussion of these immensely important issues.
I want to ask only one question of fact. It relates to the statement that the new Royal Charter will set out the responsibilities of the governors and the national councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Statement says:
"The board of governors will have a strategic oversight of the BBC's activities and management".
Will my noble friend tell the House what the phrase "strategic oversight" really means? Does it mean "authority"? Does it mean "control"? Does it mean the type of authority that a board of directors has over the affairs of a company? Or does it mean something less?

1299
And if it does mean something less, what exactly does it mean? "Strategic oversight" is an extraordinary expression. It suggests something less than full control and full responsibilities. But the practical point is that if the BBC does anything wrong, will the responsibility for that wrongdoing be accepted by members of the Board of Governors, or indeed responsibility for other aspects of the BBC itself? That is an extremely important aspect of the matter. I beg my noble friend to make that clear.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my first reply to my noble friend is that, of course, I will pass on his remarks to the usual channels. The question of a debate is, however, a matter for the usual channels; it is not in my gift. In answer to his second point, it is primarily for the governors to ensure that the BBC meets its objectives while keeping closely in touch with its audiences. The governors have set up a new public complaints unit independently to consider complaints. The BBC will also have to take account of the views of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission which, as I said, we propose to merge into a single body. The governors set objectives and monitor performance. They appoint the managers and they can dismiss them.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I can add to the answer that was given to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. In my seven years as vice-chairman we certainly exercised that authority to appoint and dismiss very senior managers. I can assure the noble Lord that we did just that.
I also warmly welcome, in broad terms, the White Paper and much that is in it. I especially welcome the point that is made on the need to ensure that the editorial independence of the BBC remains. That is of crucial importance.
As to the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the BBC, I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that much had already been done, in the face of the much misunderstood attacks on John Birt, under "producer choice", which an independent report found to be working very effectively. It has saved £100 million in 1993–94 for front line programmes and will probably save another £75 million over the next two years. Is the noble Baroness equally aware that a great deal of success has already been achieved with the international television service? There is no cross-subsidisation from the BBC licence fee or from taxation. It has been done by making the service commercially successful. Is the Minister also aware that it will almost certainly be more successful following the link up with the Pearson Report?
The Government had a need, I suppose, to put something about privatisation into the White Paper? I understand that. But can she recognise, and will she try to pass on to her right honourable friend, that privatising something—for example, transmission—is not really an answer to anything. In practice, it would provide very little in the way of extra competition but it could, and almost certainly would, add to cost; and it would mean a loss of control for the BBC. When the Government
1300
consider the option of privatisation of transmission— and I understand also the question of digital matters —I hope that they will think very carefully before privatising transmission as a whole.
Finally, in the light of today's excellent Select Committee report, I recognise that in regard to listed sporting events the Minister cannot make a statement today for very obvious reasons. The report only came out at 12 noon. But will she pass on to her right honourable friend that it is of crucial importance that major national listed sporting events should not be available only to those who can afford satellite television. It would be appalling if that were to apply just because they are able to pay hugely for that pleasure. The broadcasting of such events should be available to anybody who can take television, whether terrestrial or satellite. I hope, therefore, that it will be available. While the Minister cannot answer that question today, in principle she might be able to tell the House that the Government accept the proposition in the all-party Select Committee's report. The committee unanimously agreed that there should not be exclusivity and that these crucial national listed sporting events should not be exclusive to satellite television.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who of course has immense experience in this field, for bearing out some of the words in the Statement. I will, of course, pass on the remarks that the noble Lord made, which for obvious reasons I cannot answer, to my right honourable friend.
With regard to the cost of privatisation, it would bring an injection of private funds to allow very desirable developments in broadcasting technology. Other ways of achieving that investment may be possible and we shall consider the options with the BBC. There will be no cross-subsidisation for the BBCs commercial activities. We want the BBC to compete fairly and be seen to do so.
In relation to sport, about which I feel as strongly as anybody else, the Select Committee published its conclusions on the broadcasting of sporting events and my right honourable friend will look closely at what is recommended before reaching decisions on what further action may be necessary to ensure access to national sporting events. There are certain sporting events which have a special place in the life of this country. That was recognised in the Broadcasting Act 1990 which prevents certain events being broadcast solely on a "pay-per-view" basis. My right honourable friend believes that that safeguard remains necessary and he will consider the Select Committee's recommendations on whether or not those arrangements should be strengthened.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, on the whole I welcome the White Paper. However, it ducks the one question, also touched on by the Opposition Benches, as to whether the BBC should continue to be judge and jury of its own case. There is unhappiness about that. The Government have taken a long time to mature the White Paper; we have been expecting it for a year. No doubt they have been thinking and rethinking how they can form some sort of organisation which would not be as disadvantaged as it is at present. But no Minister dare

1301
in any way criticise the BBC. If they do so they will receive a fearful blistering, not only from the press, but also from the BBC. Sir Norman Tebbit, as he then was, was the last to experience it when he pointed out that the account of the Tripoli raid given by the BBC was rather different from that given by ITN. He asked the BBC why its description was so vividly different. The headline that night was, "Conservative Chairman attacks the BBC for its programmes". Since then he has been rather quiet on the issue.
We looked at a number of commitments and I am not sure that I agree with a number of noble Lords on the opposite Benches. The Statement says,
"A new agreement between the Government and the BBC would govern its operations; this would replace the present licence".
Which Minister will do that? Will it be someone from the DTI? It will be a much wider issue with mixed private and public enterprise. It is not easy to see how any politician could take on the responsibility. I hoped that the Government would set up a broadcasting commission and even consider an ombudsman. That may give members of the public some satisfaction and someone to whom they can write with their criticisms.
The BBC is governed by rules—we set them up in 1990—in relation to fairness, balance and impartiality. It is governed by its producers' rules also. I read those from cover to cover, all 297 pages of them. I wonder whether any producer ever reads them all? But they are not always obeyed. We have seen one or two glaring cases, such as the programme about the Kray twins. That was not in accordance with the wishes of the programme people or the standards that they wished to set. I am sorry that there has not yet been a solution in that area.
I have one other query. We are always being told that a restructuring of the BBC is taking place. I have no wish to disturb the staff of the BBC. They are loyal, good and conscientious in many ways. But when I ask for the total number I am told, "It has come down substantially". When I ask for specific figures I am told 25,000. That was said 25 years ago. It is said, "We intend to knock 5,000 off so that we can give good value for money and put more money into programmes". But the number remains static. Perhaps the Minister can inform the House of the present total.
I support the point that a debate would be desirable. The House holds a great deal of expertise and it would be nice, while the matter is fresh in our minds and not set in tablets of stone, for us to debate it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in response to my noble friend's point regarding judge and jury, the public will judge the BBC. It will have to publish clear objectives for its services in a statement of promises to its audiences. Changes to the nature of those services will be possible only if the BBC first consults its audiences on the proposed changes. It will also have to provide people with information about its services and its performance when it sends out reminders for the television licence. People will be given an address to which they can send comments about the services and programmes.
1302
My right honourable friend is responsible for the BBC and will take the lead in the review of its funding, in consultation with his colleagues. As regards bias on the part of the BBC, the new agreement will contain a clear obligation to treat contentious issues with due impartiality. It will be primarily for the BBC governors to ensure that BBC programmes comply with that obligation.
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me prior warning that he would ask about the number of members of staff at the BBC. I obtained a list and during 1993–94 the BBC as a whole shed over 1,500 members. The biggest reductions came in central overhead departments where the workforce dropped by 8 per cent. Productivity savings amounted to £100 million in 1993–94. Between 1989 and 1993 the BBC staff was reduced from 28,600 to 24,900 and there will be a further fall this year.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, the noble Baroness quite rightly referred to the high standard of work performed by the BBC Overseas Service. That was accomplished in spite of the fact that Conservative Governments often cut the grants. Can the Minister give an assurance that future grants will not be cut in a way which will affect the high standard of performance given by overseas services.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords. I am not sure that I understand to which grants the noble Lord is referring. The grant-in-aid remains, as does the World Service. We will do all we can to make: sure that that remains entirely viable.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although there is much in the Statement that I welcome, especially the merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, perhaps I can ask my noble friend about a matter which I feel is an anomaly. All the other broadcasting agencies in this country are governed by statute and are indirectly answerable to Parliament. The Statement says that a number of the BBC's activities in future will be covered by legislation. Why then do we have the anomaly that the main part of the BBC's work is to continue to be the subject of a Royal Charter, under which the BBC's responsibility to Parliament, if it exists at all, is extremely vague?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his question. Establishing the BBC by Royal Charter prevents it from being seen as a creature of Parliament. It therefore underlines the BBC's editorial independence. That was recognised when the BBC was first established and it remains a relevant consideration today.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many people, while welcoming the Statement and the White Paper, are relieved chat the BBC is not to be reorganised out of existence as some of us feared? In relation to the governors, does the noble Baroness realise that many people believe that the governors are still drawn from too narrow a section of

1303
society—the great, the good and the politically correct? Is there any proposal to try to widen the area from which the governors are recruited?
Can the noble Baroness give us further reassurance about the BBC World Service, which is admired throughout the world? What we need is an assurance that the service will not only be properly financed at its present level but, as and when it is felt to be right, will also be financed to expand. That is the kind of assurance we want.
Finally, the noble Baroness said that in future the commercial broadcasting services of the BBC will have to be licensed by the ITC and the Radio Authority. What criteria will be used for the licensing of commercial broadcasting services? Perhaps I may give an example. I should have thought that the BBC would want to build up its world television news network perhaps to rival CNN. Would the licensing preclude it from doing that? If it did, it would be altogether reprehensible. It would not be good for the BBC or for the people of this country.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the World Service is expanding. The BBC is opening a new bureau this year. With regard to the great and the good, what is most important is to ensure a balance of experience, including in the future for the BBC's commercial activities.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
4.51 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 31 [Use of vehicles under licences]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 191A:
Page 27, line 29, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I should like to know why the fine is set at the level established in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: A maximum fine of £2,500 at Level 4 is commonly provided in the 1968 Act for all those breaches of operator licensing rules for which the licence holder can be convicted. Examples are using an operating centre for vehicles authorised by a licence which is not specified in that licence, contravening any environmental conditions as to the use of an operating centre and using a goods vehicle without an operator's licence which comes into the category requiring such a licence under the 1968 Act. I think that your Lordships would agree that it is more serious, for example, to use a goods vehicle without a licence than to breach any maximum number of vehicles and trailers stipulated on a licence. I hope the noble Lord will agree, therefore, that a penalty for contravening the provisions in the Bill concerning the maximum number of vehicles and trailers to be used under a licence at any one time is appropriately set at Level 4. With that brief explanation, I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am obliged to the Minister. That is a perfectly satisfactory explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 192:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Advertisement of lorry centre applications
.After subsection (5) of section 62 of the 1968 Act there shall be inserted—
"(5A) A person applying for an operator's licence shall also affix a notice outlining details of their application to the perimeter of the site in a position clearly visible to the public." ").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 197AA. The new clause would require a person applying for an operator's licence to advertise his proposals on the site that is relevant. As we shall discuss later on, operating a lorry centre may well have a highly deleterious effect on the area. It will certainly have a major impact on the area in some instances. Consequently, we take the view that people who live in the vicinity of a proposed operating centre should be informed of any proposals which may relate to it. At present it is required that proposals relating to this issue have to be advertised in a paper which circulates in the locality. That is not a wholly reliable way of ensuring that people affected by a proposal are aware of it. Notices on site to advertise proposals are frequently used in relation to planning applications. I cannot see any reason why they should not bear similar relevance to the issue we are considering now.
What they would certainly do is provide an alternative way of ensuring that residents received advance notice of proposals which related to the lorry operating centres. I cannot see that that would produce any great burden on industry—certainly not an undue burden, although one might say that a burden is anything which causes pen to be put to paper. It is a perfectly straightforward proposal. I hope the Minister will receive it in a positive way. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: I rise briefly to support the amendment, especially when one considers that the licence will last for an indefinite period. The people living in the locality must have the opportunity to know that someone will be operating very close to them. The advertisements one sees in the newspaper refer to the address where the proposed operations will start, but the residents may not realise how close the centre is unless they see the notice on the premises concerned.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Following our consultation last year on operator licensing, we considered carefully whether requiring site notices, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would be a good idea. We concluded that it was not necessary to do so to ensure that local people were fully informed. We were also concerned that such a requirement would be very difficult to enforce. Considerable enforcement effort would be required to ensure that the applicant had indeed put site notices in a visible place and kept them there for the requisite period. This would, for example,

1305
involve visiting the site at regular intervals to check that the notice was displayed. There could be disputes with applicants claiming that they had put up site notices and residents claiming that they had not, or applicants claiming that they had done their duty but vandals, or even the weather, had constantly torn the notices down.
I should like to reassure the Committee that local people in whose interests the site notice would be erected would have ample opportunity to learn about the use of an operating centre and to make representations if they wished. That will not change in a system of continuous licensing.
On the goods vehicle side, to which Amendment No. 192 relates, applications for an operator's licence or a major variation to an existing licence will still have to be advertised in local newspapers with details of proposed operating centres. I am not as unhappy about local newspaper advertising as I think the noble Lord is. My experience is that people tend to read the local newspaper from cover to cover in a way that they do not usually read the nationals. These advertisements are picked up, and picked up in the warmth and comfort of people's homes, in a way that perhaps they would not be picked up as people passed by a notice in their motor cars. Local people will therefore have a notice in the local newspapers. They will see it and they will have the right to complain at any time to a licensing authority about the use of the operating centre.
That is one of the points of continuous licensing. The licensing authority will take into account representations from people affected by the use of an operating centre in considering any disciplinary action against an operator at any time or in deciding whether or not to review an operating centre at the five-year point. That provision—that is to say, the operating centre being reviewed at the five-year point—will be widely publicised.
As regards public service vehicles and Amendment No. 197AA, if an applicant for an operator's licence is planning to use an existing operating centre, local residents will gain nothing from being informed that a new operator is going to use that site, so why should the applicant have to go to the trouble and expense of advertising? On the other hand, when a new operating centre is to be used, the owner must first obtain planning permission for such use. As part of that process a site notice has to be displayed and local residents may make their representations when the planning application is considered by the local authority. Were it to be mandatory to display site notices, traffic commissioners would have to find the resources to enforce such a provision. They could only do that either by employing additional resources with an inevitable increase in licensing fees, or in decreasing the enforcement effort spent on other activities. I am sure that none of us wants to see that happen.
We believe that the arrangements provided in the legislation are a far more effective means of informing concerned local residents than site notices. I should like to emphasise to the Committee that the Bill does not change the existing arrangements on notification. They
1306
are still there and the public will still be informed via the newspapers. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord makes up his mind on this matter, perhaps I may chip in here. We do not need to make a meal of this because it is a peripheral matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It is important.
Lord Tordoff: Two factors have occurred to me. First, the Minister's faith in people reading newspapers is somewhat exaggerated. It is true that local newspapers are better read than national newspapers and that is usually because the content is more interesting. A lot of these notices appear in the columns of the advertising part of the newspapers which very often are discarded while people get on with reading the local news.
The reply which the Minister gave on the second amendment that site notices are required under the planning consents, rather undermines his argument regarding the first part of his response that site notices are no good because they get washed away or people tear them down. The truth is that if someone sees a notice in their close locality they are tempted to read it. They will say, "I did not know that that was going to happen in my back yard". But as regards newspapers, people do not scour them although the professionals do. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that this matter is not unimportant and I accept that for the particular resident it is very important. I was merely saying that in relation to the whole nature of this Bill, it is a minor matter. However, it is an important matter and I wonder whether the Minister will go back to the drawing board again and think this matter through before we get to the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and add my impressions of what is happening. Here we are dealing with two different issues. We are, first, dealing with the vehicle operator's licence. Because they are now being issued for life, it is only as regards the first application that the notice would appear in the local press. At present, these notices appear in the local press every five years when the applicant has to apply for renewal of the licence. That is one aspect that is being abolished. Therefore the only opportunity which the local residents will get as regards the vehicle operator's licence is in the initial application, whereas since 1968 there has been the opportunity every five years.
Secondly, in relation to the site operating licence, the Minister is quite correct that for a new site the applicant has to get planning permission. In that context neighbour notification comes into play. The applicant has to notify the neighbours. I was a little disturbed when the Minister went on to say—rather dangerously, I thought—that it would not be of any great interest to the local residents if the site operator changed. He said

1307
that there would be no need for the local residents to know if one site operator gave up the site and a new one took it over. That is very important to local residents.
There is now developing not only in Scotland, but throughout the whole of Great Britain, a tendency for large haulage companies to move away from city and town centres into rural areas. My experience in the past five or six years has been that many large haulage companies have relocated in village areas where there are populations of between 1,000 and 2,000 and where the environment is very important indeed. In what we are discussing today, there is a dangerous tendency for the Government to come down on the side of saving the industry money at the expense of the public interest. I do not believe that the Minister has the balance right. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that it would not be a bad idea if the Minister took this matter away for further consideration.
I realise the problems involved in displaying public notices and so forth; but surely in the case of villages where large haulage concerns are now locating themselves, it is in the interest of village life and the community that we make sure that the villagers know exactly what the proposals are for the applications for the vehicle operator's licence and for the site operator's licence. I hope that the Minister will have a second look at this matter before we come to Report stage.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I believe that the noble Lord has contradicted himself. He seems to base his case for the erection of a site notice on companies relocating into rural areas. I am sure that he accepts that any relocation has to receive planning permission, and there is an adequacy of notice given through that route. Therefore, if one comes out of the town centre or wherever, local people have the opportunity to check and make their representations. You cannot obtain a licence and then put the company in some other place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is it not right that sometimes planning permission is granted but not utilised for some considerable time? There could then be a considerable change in circumstances and much to the detriment of the people in the locality affected. I believe that situation ought to be protected in the way we have suggested. It would not be protected where there is a substantial gap in the period before the operational centre was constructed or became operational. That is a particular reason why this provision is sensible.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am pretty sure I am right in saying that currently planning permissions are granted for a very restricted period.
Lord Clinton-Davis: No.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me. I applied for planning permission two-and-a-half years ago. I got permission, but if I do not undertake the work, that permission expires in three
1308
years. Is that a substantial period or is it too long for the noble Lord? I am suggesting that there is an in-built protection.
Earl Attlee: As I understand it, if premises were used for a particular purpose prior to the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act, you can continue using them for that purpose. Some premises have never been subject to any planning permission.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: As we are in Committee, perhaps I may reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I apologise if I sounded contradictory. I do not know about planning permissions in England and Wales, but in Scotland a planning consent has to be acted upon within four years or the permission lapses. It is as simple as that.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said and that, when the initial planning application and neighbour notification come into play, the people in the village know exactly what is going on. The Minister took that a stage further and said that in his view, if the ownership of the site operator changes, there is no need for local people to know about that. I am saying that there is every need for the people in the locality to know if one owner gives up the site operator's licence and passes it to a completely different owner. The good relations built up between the site operator and the villagers could easily be destroyed by an incoming operator. That is the point that I hope that the Minister will take away and return to on Report.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be helpful if I reply at this point. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Ewing—I may not have made this clear originally—that my point about new operators was relevant to Amendment No. 197AA on public service vehicles. The problem that the noble Lord envisages about haulage firms relocating to the countryside relates to goods vehicle operator licences. If it is of any help to him, I can tell him that an application for a licence by a new operator or for major variations to existing licences would still be subject to full scrutiny. That includes adverts in local papers and would allow opportunities for objections and representations by interested parties. The same advertising protection that is built into the provisions for the first applicant, if I may put it that way, is also built in to the provisions governing any new or significant change in an operator's licence. Therefore, I do not think that the danger that the noble Lord envisages will arise.
I understand the points that other noble Lords have made. I have no desire to have a system in which people are not properly acquainted with what is going on. However, adding this requirement to the things that an operator has to do is simply adding another burden. It may not be a very big burden, but it is nevertheless a burden. We should proceed in that way only if the advocates of change can present cases showing that people did not know that something was happening next to them but that they would have known if notices had gone up. I maintain that the current system of notification in local papers seems to have proved sufficient. Unless I can be shown evidence to the

1309
contrary, I shall stick to my guns on that one. However, if noble Lords can bring me evidence either today or between now and Report, I am quite prepared to look at this again.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am very disappointed by that reply. We are not making a revolutionary proposal. The Minister is normally a reasonable man and I wish that, applying that reason and seeing the word "resist" at the top of his briefing, he had applied his mind to the matter and said, "This is not an issue that I ought to resist. This is perfectly reasonable".
I should like to deal with the arguments which the Minister has adduced. I wholly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that notices are not necessarily seen by people in the locality. This situation is comparable to what happens with regard to the notices that appear in relation to planning applications. Frankly, I would never have known about a certain planning application in the road in which I live if I had followed the Minister's advice and read all the advertisements in the Ham & High with great alacrity. I do not have the time to do that. I even have difficulty in finding the time to read all this material—let alone anything else. I am sure that the Minister will say, "That's obvious from the way in which you approach the subject". Therefore, from personal experience, I do not accept that one always knows about planning applications from the local press. The same argument applies here. The notices that appear on trees and elsewhere in the locality are of great importance. I have never observed notices about applications for planning permission to have been destroyed by the weather or vandals. Vandals prefer to vandalise cars—not notices advertising planning applications. The truth of the matter is that it is a shallow argument to say that advertising in local newspapers is sufficient.
I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lord Ewing about site operation changes. That is a powerful argument, as was, if I may say so, the argument that I adduced about the lapse of time, which can be substantial if it is three or four years. The new operator might be wholly undesirable, as could be the operation that he envisages. Therefore, it is something of a non-sequitur for the Minister to say that this is a burden that should not be applied to the industry.
I hope that the Minister will not insist on his argument about evidence. The evidence is adducible from experience of planning cases. I should have thought that it is a matter of common sense. More than that, however, the Minister asserts that the public have nothing to worry about in terms of environmental harm being caused. He says that the Government are not introducing anything that might upset people. But people do not believe that. In a way, it is a test of the Government's bona fides to assert that the Government are on the side of everybody and that they do not want to harm people's right to know such things.
I am very dissatisfied with the Minister's response. Unless the noble Lord can say categorically and without any caveats, "I shall take this back and look at it again with a view to making a positive response to this
1310
eminently common sense proposal"—a proposal which is supported not only on this side of the Committee and by the Liberal Democrats, but also by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, from the Cross Benches —I shall have to test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may come back again. Although I do not wish to prevent the noble Lord having a vote, I do not want to appear difficult about something that I do not think is a terrifically big issue. Although I accept that people living in a certain road who might miss a local advert but might see a notice might not like the idea on environmental grounds, some of the other grounds which the noble Lord mentioned, such as the operator not being a suitable person, would be picked up by the statutory authorities which have to be notified officially. The sieve is not so big, if I may put it that way, that such aspects will not be picked up by the authorities, which have to be notified in any case.
I have listened to the arguments and I appreciate that we insist that such notices are put up for planning applications. However, as I said, I should like to see some evidence before adding even a tiny additional burden, because to do so seems contradictory in a Bill that seeks to deregulate industry. If it is any help, however, and if it prevents us having coo great a disagreement at this stage, I shall take the amendment away and look seriously at whether this might be a sensible provision to add to the Bill, as it is added already into the planning system.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I appreciate what the Minister has said. He has moved a little in the right direction. However, this is not a complicated argument and I should have thought that the Minister's response would be, "I shall look favourably upon this". Anything short of that is not satisfactory. The Minister's whole argument has been against it—"I do not believe that it is right to do it. I shall want convincing evidence". How one adduces convincing evidence before the require-ment comes into operation, I do not know. This is an eminently sensible proposition. The response I am seeking from the Minister is not only, "I shall look at it again", but, "I shall look at it favourably again". Anything short of that, I fear, is unacceptable. Very well, then I must ask for the opinion of the Committee to be tested.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 192) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Airedale, L.

Carter, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carver, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Attlee, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cross, V.

Bottomley, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Broadbridge, L.

David, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

1311

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Marsh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Eatwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Foot, L.

Molloy, L.

Geraint, L.

Monkswell, L.

Glenamara, L.

Monson, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

[Teller.]

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gregson, L.

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Haskel, L.

Seear, B.

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kintore, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Whaddon, L.

Longford, E.

White, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mar, C.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gainford, L.

Addison, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Aldington, L.

Geddes, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Annaly, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Arran, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harlech, L.

Astor, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Borthwick, L.

Huntly, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brentford, V.

Kimball, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Long, V.

Burnham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord

Carnock, L.

Chancellor.]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mancroft, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chelmer, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Milverton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V.

Newall, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norrie, L.

Denham, L.

Northesk, E.

Dilhorne, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orkney, E.

Downshire, M.

Pender, L.

Dundonald, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Flather, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

1312

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Swansea, L.

Savile, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Seccombe, B.

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Stewartby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Strange, B.

Weatherill, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Wise, L.

[Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.28 p.m.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 192ZA:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
("Parish councils to be objectors under the 1968 Act
â—(1) Section 63 of the 1968 Act (which makes provision for objections to the grant of operators' licences) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6), "parish council" shall be added to the definition of "local authority".").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment introduced in the best spirit of subsidiarity. It wishes to give parish councils the right to be objectors under Section 63 of the 1968 Act. In logic that must be right, because when places are carrying out objectionable practices and noise nuisances, and causing environmental hazards and such things, rights to object are given to all sorts of local authorities. The parish council is the unit at the sharp end. It is the body to which local residents will complain. It is wrong if parish councils have no right of objection or appearance.
I hope that without making a great meal of the issue the Minister will think it right to allow parish councils to have these rights of objection, as have other units of local government. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: This is an extraordinary amendment. In putting it before the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, prayed in aid logic. He said, "So in logic it must be right". However, there is no logic in this amendment because in many areas of the country there are no parish councils. What is the point of including this provision, because it is totally meaningless? I hope that the noble Lord will reflect upon that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, rightly said that it is an example of the principle of subsidiarity; in other words, if a decision must be taken by a public body, it should be taken by the public body nearest to the person who might be adversely affected. In this case, the decision is whether to object.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that the provision is meaningless because in many parts of the country there is no parish. If there is no parish no question arises. However, in many parts of the country there is a parish and that is where this amendment bites and where it is entitled to respect. Certainly in those parts of the country where villages are widely separated the district

1313
council is very remote from the ordinary citizen but the parish council is in close touch. I believe that no reasonable objection can be taken to this amendment and that it has much to recommend it.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may add a slight gloss to what the noble and learned Lord said. I agree that parish councils are by far the most democratic part of the political establishment of this country. They are nearest to the people in their communities. For that reason alone it is right that they should be included.
However, as a result of the review of local government boundaries, we shall in many cases have district councils, which are significantly bigger. My own fair county of Somerset, for instance, will be divided into a smaller number of larger district council, unless we can stop that. In other words, the district council will be further away from the average citizen. In those cases, the district council is the obvious body via which objections can be lodged—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Does not the noble Lord mean parish councils?
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Yes, I mean parish councils. The parish council is more in touch with local opinion and it can bring detailed knowledge to the discussions. It can act as a channel for the objections of ordinary people. I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The provision does not apply to Scotland for the simple reason that Scotland does not have "parish" councils. The amendment gives parish councils the statutory right of objection. We are not giving parish councils—in Scotland we call them community councils—the right to make the decision as to whether an operator's licence is granted.
The Minister, from his Scottish experience and background, will be aware that community councils in Scotland already have the statutory right of objection in an application for liquor licences for public houses or restaurants. One of the few, if not the only, statutory rights that community councils in Scotland have is the right of objection to the grant of those liquor licences.
The Minister should look at the matter carefully because, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, as local authorities become larger—and that is the purpose of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill—the possibility of objection is removed from the local people. Surely it is important that in the vital issue of granting such licences, which will affect the quality of life in the area in which they are granted, the community councils in Scotland (or the parish councils in England and Wales) should have the statutory right of objection.
Perhaps I may give the Minister a good example of area interest coming into play. The Minister knows that for years throughout Scotland we have had considerable difficulty in the construction of sites for travelling people. An abiding memory from my experience as a constituency MP is of an application being made to Falkirk District Council, which had 36 members, to locate a site for travelling people. The vote to locate that site in one councillor's area was 35 in favour and only one against, the vote against being that of the particular
1314
councillor. I am not saying that the 35 people who were in favour of locating the site in that councillor's area were in favour of it; but they were mightily relieved that it was not being located in (heir area. The larger one makes such councils the more danger there is of that type of vested interest occurring. That is what makes the new clause so attractive.
I become worried when my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis says that the Minister is a kind and considerate man and so forth. I shall not say that that is where my worry stems from, but this is a good opportunity for the Minister to display his kindness and consideration and to take the matter away for examination.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My kindness and consideration for the amendment force me to suggest to the Committee that we should resist its addition to the Bill. To a certain extent, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, made my case for me in his example of travelling people, where everyone wants to help in theory but no one wants them in their back yard. He gave an example and certainly I could occupy the Committee with some of my experiences in the matter. They are along the same lines: "Not in my village. There is a very good site in the next village". But perhaps I had better not go down that road too much.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also made my case for me. He said that it was right that "district councils" should have the power, and then he corrected himself. I suspect that the score is now one all as regards my slip of the tongue the other day. At least, I am claiming that it is one all.
In considering operator licences we looked at this matter carefully; we considered whether parish councils ought to be added to the list of statutory objectors, which is the important point. The point is not merely that they will be told that an application has been received and that they can make their objections but that they will actually be added to the list of statutory objectors. The police, certain local authorities, the planning authority and the relevant trade unions are the statutory objectors and they have the right of appeal to the transport tribunal. Therefore, it is a serious step to add any group to the list of statutory objectors, and that includes parish councils. I would resist the proposition that parish councils should be added to the list of statutory objectors. But I want to make it clear to the Committee that they can—and I am sure that they do —play a role in the operator licensing system.
A parish council has a right of representation, in response to newspaper advertisements, on environmental grounds in respect of an application for a goods vehicle operator licence where it owns or occupies property in the vicinity of the operating centre concerned and the parish council's enjoyment of that property would be adversely affected.
Parish councils may subscribe to the fortnightly publication Applications and Decisions—known as As&Ds—which gives details about current applications. They may approach their county or district councils to seek to persuade them to exercise their right of objection.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does not the noble Lord think that it is rather cumbrous to allow the parish council to operate by approaching somebody else rather than operating directly?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that it is cumbersome. In many spheres of local government decisions are not made at parish council level. Although I am not an expert on parish councils in England, I suspect that very few decisions are made by parish councils. One way in which they represent the people who elect them is to speak to their local councillors at the next level and put collective pressure, as a parish council, on their councillors at county or district level to do whatever they want; in this case, to ask the council, which has a right of statutory objection, to lodge that objection.
I believe that protection exists. Parish councils have a role to play. As my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out, they do not exist everywhere in England but, where they do exist, I do not believe that it is right to add them to the list of statutory objectors.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to clarify his answer. I listened very carefully and tried to find the logic of what he said. I heard no rebuttal of the argument that parish councils are close to grass roots opinion and are very democratic. Therefore, almost prima facie, they should be statutory objectors.
If the noble Lord's argument is that he considers the list to be sufficiently long, at least I can see the logic of that. He says, "I do not want any more and it is rotten luck that you are at the back of the queue". But I heard no analysis of why parish councils should not be included. If we are concerned about representing opinion and democracy, listening to the arguments put forward and, indeed, listening to the reply of the Minister, I thought that parish councils should be much higher up the list than some of those which are actually on the list. Can he convince us of the position that he has adopted?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not subscribe to the view that one level of government is any more or less democratic than another. I suspect that in some areas parish councillors are more or less unelected with no contest. It is difficult to describe them as democratic. I realise that in your Lordships' House that is not a terribly convincing argument, but I have not been asked to add your Lordships' House to the list of statutory objectors. County and district councils are democratic-ally elected and in many cases seats on those councils will be contested. Therefore, I cannot agree with the view that there is a hierarchy of democracy in these matters and that parish councils are more democratic than other councils above them.
Indeed, I should like to look carefully at what powers parish councils have because this amendment would give a power of statutory objection which would put them on all-fours with, for example, planning authorities, the police and relevant trade unions. I suggest that that may be a step too far. I have explained to your Lordships how parish councils at present and in
1316
the future may use their influence. They can make representations or they can persuade their local authority to exercise its statutory power of objection.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may seek some clarification from the Minister. I rather gather from what he said that parish councils have the opportunity to object, even though they are not statutory objectors. He said that they can find out what is going on from announcements in the newspapers and that, just as any citizen can, they can put forward objections.
The idea that parish councillors are not elected is not a road that we should like to go down.
Noble Lords: Some are not.
Lord Monkswell: Whether they are elected uncontested is another matter. That happens in relation to district and county councils. People may be elected unopposed. Therefore, that is not a valid reason for objecting to them and for suggesting that they are less democratic than any other part of local government.
But we should try to avoid conflict. There is nothing more liable to lead to conflict than the feeling that a decision has been made over the heads of people and without consultation. This amendment provides us with a mechanism to resolve that conflict because if the parish councils are added to the list of statutory objectors then the presumption that I make is that they will be consulted officially on any proposals. They will be given notice of the proposals and will be asked for their objections to them. If they are not statutory objectors, nobody will write to them. They must find out for themselves. The problem is that if the parish councillors have not read the relevant newspapers decisions may be made without their views being sought and people will then say that they were not told about it. That creates problems. I believe that to add parish councils to the list of statutory objectors would help to avoid that conflict.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify something that he said earlier. I believe that he said that parish councils have a right to object in relation to environmental planning matters. Did he say that they can object if their property is affected? Of course, one would wish it to go further than that. One would wish that to relate to the citizens of the parish.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Rather than saying that I think I said what the noble Lord thinks I said, I shall repeat what I said. I am talking about statutory representers, rather than statutory objectors—and that may answer the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Statutory objectors can make objections with regard to the fitness of an operator, the maintenance of his vehicles, past business activities and so on, and in environmental respects. They have a right of appeal to the transport tribunal.
Statutory representers can make representations on environmental matters but they do not have a right of appeal to the tribunal. Therefore, there are two categories which can have an audience before the authorities on such matters.

1317
A parish council could have a right to representation and quite clearly, the chances are that some members of the parish council would own or occupy property in the vicinity of the operating centre. I am advised quite clearly that they could have a right to statutory representation but not to statutory objection. I believe that that is the difference between us on this matter.
Lord Howell: The Minister made an extremely disappointing reply to what is an important debate. As I listened to him, I wondered whether he believes that parish councillors have a role to do anything at all in this land. I believe that we need to encourage people more and more to take an interest in such affairs; in other words, to participate, to take decisions and to make representations. But here we have the Minister telling us that parish councils ought not to have that right, partly because, according to him, many of them are returned unopposed and there are no elections. It seems to me that the logic of that assumption is that, if you do not give parish councils sensible duties to perform and encourage them to do so, you are likely to have more unopposed elections but less likely to find people to serve on such councils.
The Minister's reply raises the fundamental question as to what the Government believe parish councils exist to do. Surely they exist to make representations about serious nuisances. That is what we are talking about; we are talking about nuisances of one sort or another and the right to be objectors. The Minister said that such councils can make representations through the district council. That is hardly a principle which we ought to apply generally in local government—that one tier of local government should pursue the objections about which its constituents feel strongly by asking another tier of local government to register such objections. But that is what the Minister seems to be saying.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I find the argument very difficult. I invite the noble Lord to remember the number of times when he was in another place that constituents came to him and he wrote letters which were clearly the responsibility of the county council or the district council. He did not send his constituents away: he actually made representations on their behalf to that other authority. I am afraid to say that my idea is not novel.
Lord Howell: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, earlier, the Minister was good enough to concede a point and say that the score was one all. In my other capacity, I was about to wave a yellow card at the Minister. However, in view of the answer that he has just given—which merits two yellow cards—I believe that he should be sent off, just as happens in the World Cup. However, I do not wish to send the Minister off the field because we want to keep him in play; but we also want to keep parish councils in play.
I do not believe that there is any analogy here with the duties of Members of Parliament. Indeed, those of us who have been MPs know perfectly well that this issue is at the nub of many of our problems. But, as the Minister has tempted me down that road, I should like to point out to him that in the City of Birmingham we
1318
have considered most carefully how we could create parish councils even in such a large city. We have done so for the simple reason that we are anxious to stop the feelings of frustration that so many people have when they put forward compkunts. As a compromise in Birmingham, we have established neighbourhood councils and neighbourhood centres. They are working very well. In fact, they take much of the load off the shoulders of other elected representatives. That is the important point that has emerged from our debate.
We are not talking about trivial nuisances, with people experiencing them on the ground and living next to them; we are talking about substantial problems. I took some encouragement from a phrase used by the Minister in part of his reply. He said that he would look carefully at the powers of such councils-—which means, of course, that he is not quite certain what their powers are. I can well understand that and I make no complaint.
However, as I do not wish to divide the Committee on the matter, I should like to take the Minister a little further down that road. I wonder whether I can persuade him to look again at the matter in the hope that he may be persuaded that parish councils have an important role to play in matters which directly affect their parishioners. I am sorry to see the Minister shaking his head. But as I do not wish to divide the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, while giving notice that we shall return to the subject at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Determination of applications for licences]:
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 192ZB:
Page 28, line 1, leave out ("must") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 192D are purely drafting amendments. I hope that the Minister will find them helpful to his purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The provisions of new Section 64(1) to (5) are drafted in the way they are in order to spell out more explicitly the approach that must be taken in practice by the licensing authorities when they consider applications for operator licences. The process is that the licensing authority should ask himself whether the requirements set out in subsection (3), and if he thinks fit subsection (4), would be met were he to grant a licence in the terms applied for. If he decides not, the next stage is to ask himself whether they would be met were he to grant a licence in different terms; for example, authorising fewer vehicles or with the imposition of certain conditions. If he decides that the requirements would not be met were he to grant the licence in any terms, he must refuse the application outright.
That is set out clearly in subsection (9) of new Section 64 to the 1968 Act which I shall read to the Committee so as to ensure that we are all quite clear about it. It reads:
"If the licensing authority determines that any of the requirements that he has taken into consideration in accordance with subsection (1) of this section are not satisfied, he shall refuse the application, but in any other case he shall, subject to section 69B and 89(2) of this act, grant the application".

1319
The drafting of new Section 64 takes that into account. The requirements that the licensing authority has to consider are previous convictions and business activities related to goods vehicles, the arrangements for securing that vehicles are maintained in a fit and serviceable condition and are not overloaded, and the availability, suitability and capacity of the operating centre or centres proposed. In considering those matters he must have regard to any duly made objections and may take into account any undertakings given by the applicant.
The phraseology which the amendments seek to change is entirely appropriate when dealing with requirements that have to be satisfied. I am advised that "must" is appropriate for the setting out of requirements. I hope that the Committee will accept that the clause as drafted achieves the intended result and that "must" is the appropriate word, not "shall".
Lord Howell: In view of the Minister's explanation, which I find to be satisfactory and understandable, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 28, line 7, at end insert:
("(2A) The licensing authority shall in all cases ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that information given by the applicant in regard to any of the matters set out in subsection (2) above is correct, before issuing an operator's licence.").
The noble Lord said: At present when applying for an operator's licence the applicant is asked for details of any criminal convictions and of his or her financial history. For example, applicants are asked whether they have ever been made bankrupt. However, the information supplied by the applicant is, as I understand it—though I stand to be corrected on the point—not further investigated by the licensing authorities. In fact, it could be done, though it is not, through the Police National Computer or the Register of Disqualified Directors held at Companies House. The amendment would ensure that all such information which the applicant advances in connection with subsection (2) (a) and (b) is correct. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Lord explained, the amendment would require licensing authorities to check all information given on every application to deal with past business activities and convictions. We are not persuaded that such a requirement would add to the safeguards already in the system to ensure that such information is correct. Indeed, a statutory requirement to check would place an extra burden on staff and could lead to delay and extra costs for operators.
Licensing authorities will usually accept the information given on application forms unless they have reason to doubt it. Licensing authorities have the support of staff with long experience and a good internal intelligence system through past records. This enables them to follow up suspicions and to check known past offenders. The Committee will appreciate that some operators go in and out of business and change partners and operating names. Staff in the traffic areas know the firms well and keep records on them. They also keep
1320
records of previous applications and convictions. In cases where this seems necessary, a check with criminal records or local police would be made.
In addition, of course—we have been discussing this —licensing authorities are obliged in law to have particular regard to statutory objections to the application for a licence, including objections made on the grounds of applicants' past business activities and convictions. People with statutory objector status are the police, local authorities, planning authorities, and trade unions or associations whose members consist of or include licensed operators and their employees. Objections can thus be a good source of information.
As I am sure the Committee appreciates, statutory objectors are drawn from quite a wide circle of bodies, although perhaps it is not as wide as some Members of the Committee would have wished. A requirement to make checks would therefore not in practice add to the safeguards that are already there as regards the experience of the staff in the licensing authority and as regards the information—or potential information, if there is a problem—that could be provided by the statutory objectors. I should at this stage reassure the Committee and the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment that there are sanctions against those who give false information. In such cases a licensing authority has power to revoke, suspend or reduce the scope of a licence. I suggest this is sufficient deterrent and safeguard.
I hope that, with that explanation of how the system works at the moment to ensure that the information on the form is correct, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, which I believe would be quite difficult, and perhaps time consuming, to implement.
6 p.m.
Lord Peston: Will the Minister clarify his reply? Subsection (2) of Clause 33 on page 28 of the Bill is clear. It states that the applicant must not by reason of the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) be, "unfit to hold an operator's licence".
The Minister then described what I take to be what happens in practice, and what he would expect to happen in practice in order that the licensing authority could somehow act according to the existing provisions. I understood the Minister's pragmatic view as regards what he felt would happen in practice, and I cannot believe that he is mistaken, but Amendment No. 192A deals with a further matter. The matter concerns not the operator but the licensing authority. If it turned out subsequently that someone was granted an operator's licence who should not have been granted it by reason of the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), the purpose of this amendment in the name of my noble friends is to question the licensing authority on why it did not discover that. That seems to me the point of the matter. The amendment in a sense tells the licensing authority that it has a duty that we wish to put in statute. I did not hear an answer on that point from the Minister. I fully understand the points the Minister made as regards not including measures that are impracticable. However, in the case I am discussing, if it turned out

1321
that a person had a criminal conviction and then committed another act of a criminal nature which was perhaps damaging to a third party —we know that happens; happily not as frequently as one fears, but it happens—I should like it to be possible to ask the licensing authority why that person's application was allowed through. Without an amendment of this kind, I cannot see that I should have any locus to ask the licensing authority why it let a particular application through. I am seeking clarification from the Minister. I well understood his argument, which I did not find unconvincing, but I am not sure that it dealt with quite the point in the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am having some difficulty in understanding the question the noble Lord asked of me. However, no doubt if I am not answering the right question, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will tell me. The amendment which is tabled deals with the application at the time it is made. I have suggested that there are ways in which the licensing authority gains the information which could lead it—I am not saying this will happen 100 per cent. of the time—to believe that something on the application form is not correct. The authority's background and the knowledge of its staff and the information that is provided by statutory objectors, and indeed information from people making representations, may lead the authority to reach that conclusion. I believe I have said that powers are given to the licensing authority to act against someone who fills in a form falsely.
However, I believe the noble Lord was going beyond the terms of the amendment when he asked me what would happen if a new fact came to light after the licence had been granted. He asked me what would happen if no one had picked up that fact but after the licence had been granted suddenly the authority discovered that one of the entries was false and, had it been known, the authority would have reached a different conclusion. Having almost posed the question, I suppose I had better answer it.
Lord Peston: I think we have nearly reached the stage of asking the question. We can then deal with the answer. I shall explain what I have in mind. Let us assume that an operator committed another action which turned out to be illegal or criminal but, in the course of that, the authority discovers that the person had a conviction and therefore should never have been given an operator's licence in the first place. Therefore, my objection is not against the operator but rather against the licensing authority. I would want to ask why the licensing authority did not find that out in the first place. This is a matter of how much pressure we put on the licensing authority. I repeat the noble Lord's answer. In practical terms the authority will be trying to do the best it can. However, this amendment seeks to place that on a statutory basis so that one could then say to the authority, "You have failed in your statutory duty". That is my point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This, of course, is a problem with all forms that are filled in whether in relation to this matter or in relation to many other
1322
matters. The obligation to be truthful is on the person who is filling in the form. If that person is found not to be truthful, punishments or withdrawals or whatever will follow. I think I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I hope I can answer him. I believe it: would certainly make for an extremely cumbersome system if we imposed this measure on the licensing authority, because it would then have to check every single thing on every application form. That would be an exhaustive process.
I have suggested that in the trawl through its own records, through its own knowledge and through the information given by the statutory objectors, in most cases—I freely concede that I cannot guarantee that this would happen in all cases, but that might not occur even if this measure were imposed on the authority—the authority would pick up anything that was false. If, after the licence is granted —this is an important point—new facts come to light which would mean that the licence should not have been issued, the authority has the power to revoke it, suspend it, or reduce its scope. I hope I have persuaded the Committee that the existing powers give the licensing authority enough power to make sure that someone cannot get away with providing false information on a form, obtaining a licence, and then, so to speak, going on merrily even if the licensing authority finds out that something is not correct.
Lord Monkswell: I mentioned earlier this afternoon the change in circumstances between 1968 and now. The Minister has effectively described a regime that might have been applicable 20 or 30 years ago. But now, with the advent of computerised records—the police national computer has been mentioned, and no doubt there is a computer record of disqualified directors—the inquiries we are discussing should be relatively easy to make. They were obviously not even possible some years ago. I pick up the words "reasonably practicable" from the amendment. We are not saying that the authority should go to unreasonably impractical steps to check an applicant, but, where facilities now exist or where they could become available in a few years' time with the advent of further new technology and computerisation, the authorities should make those checks.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not quite as convinced as my noble friend Lord Peston as regards the response of the Minister. However, I do not want that to be construed as a major split in the Labour Party on this matter! My noble friend quite rightly says that it is his Bill. I should never have said any such thing.
It is my understanding that those who are engaged in determining whether an application should be granted rely on an admixture of hearsay, inference, guesswork and even personal prejudice or the prejudice of people around them. My noble friend Lord Monkswell is right. In this day and age it is not possible to say that the tests we have suggested are impossible or too onerous. I do not know the number of taxi drivers in the metropolitan area, but each of those applications is rigorously tested. Yet a heavy goods vehicle operator bears enormous responsibility for the goods that he carries, for safety and the environment. His obligations are substantial.

1323
Therefore, I cannot understand why a distinction should be drawn in the rigour which is quite rightly applied to taxi drivers—and perhaps even to minicab drivers, when we hear the results of the Government's investigations into that element in the London area—and goods vehicle operators. Perhaps the Minister would like to make an observation on that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would love to make an observation about it, but the position regarding taxis is not immediately known to me. I would certainly have to look at that. However, I do not believe that it necessarily reads over to other applications, including the one that we are dealing with.
In the absence of any evidence that there is a real problem here and that a lot of people have slipped through the net and obtained licences who would not have obtained them if such a statutory obligation had been placed on the licensing authority, I believe that the various checks and balances I have suggested are more than sufficient.
I remind the Committee that the Bill is an attempt to deregulate and find a balance. I do not think that placing more regulations on the authority is a sensible way to go about the matter unless a very convincing argument can be made that the authority needs this additional regulation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister says that he is not in a position to respond to the point that I made about taxi drivers and the comparable obligations of operators of heavy goods vehicles. I believe that it is a highly germane point to make.
I believe that our proposal would remove some of the obligations that fall upon the licensing authority, relying as it does on a sense of the application that it is required to consider. I hope that the Minister will say that he will look at the matter again. I do not even ask him to say that he will look at it favourably, but merely that he will consider it. A nod of his head would be sufficient. He has done more than that. He has waved in an approving way, indicating that he will look at the matter. I ask no more than that. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 192B:
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("It must be possible") and insert ("In order to enable the licensing authority").
The noble Lord said: How I envy my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. He looks at the Minister and gets a nod of the head whereas all I get is a shake of the head. I agree that I offered the Minister a yellow card. It is all very sad. Perhaps I may do better mis time.
In moving Amendment No. 192B I shall speak also to Amendment No. 192C. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the drafting of subsection (3) of the new Section 64 inserted by the Bill into the 1968 Act. That new section deals with the manner in which applications for licences are to be determined. Subsection (3) sets out a number of preconditions which appear to be intended to enable the powers of the licensing authority to be exercised effectively. The problem is that something is amiss with the drafting of
1324
the subsection so that grammatically it does not appear to make sense. The two amendments are designed to be helpful to the Government and to set out what the subsection is designed to achieve. I hope that that is the case.
Taken together, the amendments place a duty on the operator to ensure that the preconditions listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) are secured in order that the licensing authority's powers to issue a licence are fully effective. The preconditions set out in the subsection are: that there are satisfactory arrangements for securing that the vehicles are not overloaded, that there are satisfactory facilities for vehicle maintenance, that at least one place in the area of the licensing authority is specified as an operating centre and is available and suitable for such use; and that the capacity of an operating centre is sufficient for all the vehicles covered by the licence. Those preconditions are left unchanged by the amendment and, I imagine, will have the support of all Members of the Committee.
As I said, the amendments are designed to secure a response from the Minister as to whether the wording is right and achieves his purpose. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is similar to our debate on Amendments Nos. 192ZB and 192D when I explained the reasoning behind the drafting of the new subsections (1) to (5) of Section 64. These provisions reflect a process which the licensing authority must follow when considering applications for licences. In particular they reflect the questions it must ask itself in order to be satisfied that the operator will fulfil the requirements of new Section 64. The terms "it must be possible" and "apply" reflect that process.
In the earlier debate I convinced the noble Lord that the phraseology that we had inserted in the Bill was appropriate. I hope that I may be able to do so in this case. It is always difficult when we consider the best words to be used rather than arguing about what is intended. We are in total agreement about the intention. I hope that the noble Lord can accept from me that the phraseology we have used in this part of the Bill is appropriate to the application process that the licensing authority will go through as it goes step by step through the provisions in the Bill—or the Act when it becomes an Act—in order to be satisfied that it should grant an application. We believe that the phraseology which our advisers have inserted is appropriate and that the changes which the noble Lord suggests are not needed.
I hope that without showing me a yellow card the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howell: I am always delighted when a Minister of the Crown convinces himself that he is right. These days that is a rare experience. However, since the Minister, having thought about the matter, has convinced himself that he is right, I leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 192C and 192D not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 192E:
Page 29, line 47, at end insert:
("(3A) The authority may in addition impose requirements relating to maximum noise levels, whether from motor vehicles or otherwise from the operator's activities, and the period within which such noise level is permissible.")
The noble Lord said: In this case we are anxious to provide a power for the licensing authority to take into account noise levels and to impose conditions as to noise when it issues licences for an operating centre.
The new Section 64A which is inserted into the 1968 Act sets out the duty of the licensing authority to issue a licence where certain stipulated conditions are met and where the authority does not believe that remedial action is required to meet any such condition. Under subsection (3) the authority is able to vary the terms on which the licence is issued from those on which it was applied for in a number of respects. The powers are designed to increase or decrease the number of motor vehicles covered by the licence, to apply the licence to different vehicles, and to make variations concerning the weight of vehicles, trailers or the numbers of operating centres covered by the licence.
We broadly welcome the powers. However, there is no provision for the licensing authority to insert conditions about maximum noise levels. The amendment therefore seeks to correct that situation by putting into the hands of the authority powers to stipulate maximum noise levels from motor vehicles or otherwise from the operator's activities; for example, from the operating centre; and to make provision to stipulate the periods within which the maximum noise levels are permissible. Those could vary considerably. The amendment ascertains the Government's attitude to placing noise control powers in the licence.
There are a number of controls over noise in local authority traffic management systems. There are controls over the physical condition of vehicles. One aspect is the control of unacceptable noise from exhausts, and so on. However, we seek to emphasise that the power to pinpoint the precise amount and nature of noise which can flow from the grant of a licence for an operating centre with vehicles moving in and out, could give the licensing authority a very useful means of dealing with that form of environmental pollution at source rather than to rely on the remedial measures ' applied later by other means. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure that we all have a great deal of sympathy with the subject of the amendment. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we reduce the noise level in our society commensurate with the fact that we all need the vehicles, aeroplanes, and so on, which move around. However, I hope that I shall be able to persuade him that sufficient powers exist without adding this responsibility to the other responsibilities of the licensing authorities.
As the noble Lord indicated, local authorities already have powers to deal with noise nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 including noise from the use of premises. I suggest that they are in a much better position than licensing authorities to exercise such powers. The noise of vehicles in use on the road is regulated nationally under construction and use regulations. If licensing authorities were given the
1326
power to impose noise levels on vehicles which, though licensed locally, could be used nationwide, that would be to superimpose their individual views on stipulations made for general application.
I hope that the Committee will agree that for all our licensing authorities to become involved in settling requirements as to noise levels would be unnecessary, inappropriate and confusing. The problem of noise in vehicles is best left to the authorities and to the regulations which already exist to deal with the matter nationwide.
It is a serious problem. Perhaps I may say to the Committee that the perceived noise level of individual vehicles has been reduced by half in the past few years; and that further reductions in noise levels will be introduced in 1996 together with new controls on noise from air brakes, controls on the sale of replacement silencers and other measures. Research is being undertaken on body rattle from heavy lorries, and the European Union is considering such matters as control on tyre noise. Of course, improved road surfaces have helped to reduce the noise created by vehicles moving along them.
I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord that we are very serious about reducing noise as much as technology can help us to do so. However, perhaps asking the licensing authority to become involved in this specific matter is asking it to take on an additional responsibility which is better done by other people to national standards.
Lord Tordoff: The Minister has not addressed the second part of the amendment which refers to, "otherwise from the operator's activities". The period within which such noise level is permissible is also an important part of the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: leaving aside noise level, in fact the licensing authority can put conditions on the use of the site which may include the hours of the day during which the site can be used. With egard to the level of noise, if a site will be too noisy in the view of the licensing authority, I suspect that it then has to consider not giving the licence. But if a licence has been granted, and there is a noise nuisance, then the local authority has the power to deal with it, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as I said in my original response. That refers not only to noise from the lorries but also from the premises. Noise from the premises is dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall consider what the Minister said. I am not wholly persuaded, for reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred. However, I should like to take guidance on what the Minister said from those with experience of these matters, and may wish to come back to the issue later. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Conditions for securing road safety]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 192F:
Page 30, line 43, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: If it is convenient to the Committee, I speak also to Amendment No. 192G.
The amendment seeks to remove restrictions relating to the circumstances in which conditions might apply which have been attached to the licence concerning road safety. The new Section 64B of the 1968 Act sets out the powers of the licensing authority to attach conditions for securing road safety. In essence, those amount to this. The licensing authority is in a position to attach such conditions as it thinks fit for preventing vehicles covered by the licence from causing danger to the public. It can do so, first, at any point where those vehicles first join a public road on their way from the operating centre to another destination, or where they leave a public road to reach such a centre; and, secondly, on any road other than a public road along which vehicles are driven between points and the operating centre.
Those stipulations appear to be somewhat over-precise. It is suggested that there is no obvious reason why conditions required for road safety—for example, covering the condition of vehicles, maintenance, suitability for the purpose for which it is licensed, and so on—should not apply at any point where the vehicle is in motion.
I ask the Minister, first, to clarify whether the definitions used in fact mean that a vehicle could be in motion at any point outside an operating centre and not covered by the licensed conditions. Secondly, if, as appears to be the situation, a vehicle while moving within an operating centre is outside the licensing conditions, why should that be so? On that point, the vehicle could well be manoeuvring or performing lifting or dumping operations within an operating centre in a way in which safety and general roadworthiness may be relevant to the possible danger of those operations. So it would seem to be illogical that a vehicle is perhaps covered as to licence conditions up to the moment it enters an operating centre, but that, when that has happened and the vehicle comes to rest in the centre, that situation no longer obtains. I ask the Minister to clarify the drafting and explain why any possible gaps may be justified. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to explain to the noble Lord and to the Committee what is meant by the clause and add to that why I do not think the noble Lord's amendment is necessary. At present, if a licensing authority judges an operating centre to be unsuitable for reasons which are not environmental, he must refuse to authorise its use, even in circumstances where some restriction as to the way it is used might render it suitable. A typical example is where it would be unsafe for vehicles to turn in or approach from a particular direction when entering or leaving an operating centre, or where vehicles would have to enter or leave backwards.
Subsection (1) of the new Section 64B provides that a licensing authority may attach to any licence which he grants or varies such conditions as he thinks appropriate
1328
for preventing danger to the public: at any point where vehicles join or leave a public road on their way to or from an operating centre; and on any road, other than a public road, along which such vehicles are driven between such a point and the operating centre.
The licensing authority therefore has responsibility for safety considerations in respect of the restricted locality of the operating centre. The highway authority has a road safety locus on public roads and can place restrictions on the use of a public road for road safety reasons. This amendment would serve to duplicate that responsibility, and I believe it is unnecessary, therefore.
What the clause does is to give the responsibility to the licensing authority clearly inside the operating centre and at the point where it joins the public highway. Once a vehicle is on the public highway, the responsibility is that of the highway authority and it has sufficient powers to place restrictions on the use of the road for road safety reasons. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will be satisfied that all eventualities are covered either by the licensing authority or by the highway authority.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Without prejudice, I think that that is not an unreasonable response. I should like to think about what the Minister said. If the provision is duplicatory, then of course there is no purpose in it. I am not absolutely convinced that that is right and I should like to think further about it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 192G not moved.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 192H:
Page 31, line 12, leave out ("special").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary because of the extraordinary use of the word "special" in Clause 34 on page 31, line 12. We wish to leave it out. I hope that the Minister can satisfy us as to why special consideration should apply in this case to one set of people when it does not seem to apply to others.
Under the new Section 64B of the 1968 Act, a system is to be set up whereby, when the licensing authority attaches road safety conditions, varies some of those conditions or imposes new restrictions, the authority shall give the applicant or licence holder an opportunity to make representations. No one objects to that, but those representations are to cover the effects on the operator's business as opposed to intrinsic rights or wrongs of the road safety conditions. Subsection (4) requires the licensing authority to give:
"special consideration to any representations made",
by the operator. My amendment asks why. There is no objection to operators having every opportunity to make representations, the point is simply that the Bill requires special consideration by the licensing authority in respect of those representations.
It seems to me that that must mean that the operator's representations are to be given greater weight than those made by local residents, amenity groups or other representatives of the community. Surely the job of the licensing authority is to strike and maintain a proper balance between possible objections of local people and the need to secure the granting of sufficient licences to

1329
enable activities to proceed and to avoid improperly withholding licences where conditions have not been met.
I move the amendment, therefore, in order to give the Minister the opportunity to explain why there has to be special consideration for operators as opposed to other interested parties. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the word "special" is not in the Bill for any reason which ought to cause him suspicion. The inclusion of the term "special consideration" merely mirrors that already provided in the 1968 Act with regard to the imposition of environmental conditions on an operator's licence. It is important that when placing road safety conditions on an operator's licence the licensing authority gives special consideration to the views of the operator himself if indeed he chooses to make representations against those conditions. The operator may have a lot to lose in terms of the running of his business and it is right that his representations are given special consideration. This does not mean, however, that objectors should be given anything other than proper consideration. But, far more importantly, it does not mean that a licensing authority should let consideration of the operator's business override its views on potential danger to the public.
I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will be reasonably satisfied and be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howell: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It is reasonably acceptable to me. I was not overwhelmingly convinced by the use of the word "special" and the need for it in the Bill, but, in view of the explanation we have heard, I am not sufficiently agitated to divide the Committee on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Duration of licences and grant of interim licences]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 31, line 28, after ("to") insert ("the provisions of subsection (2A) below,").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 193, we discuss also Amendment No. 194. The aim of both these amendments is to enable goods vehicle operator licences to be revoked on environmental grounds. Chapter III deregulates the licensing system for operators of goods vehicles and a key element is the system of continuous licensing as against the five-year period which operates up to the present time.
The Government say—and the Minister has said this over and over again, but the mere fact that he repeats it does not mean that it is accurate—that safeguards with respect to safety in the environment will unquestionably be maintained. The primary purpose of the amendments is to probe that commitment. Lorry operating centres cause significant local environmental problems. That is not invariably the case, but many of them do. These will
1330
include noise, pollution and vibration, and a whole series of environmental problems arises because of the presence of goods vehicles in a neighbourhood. One only has to have represented an inner London area to know that that is the case. It means that there is considerable oppression caused to local residents. It is not invariably the case, but it does happen. I note that for the first time this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, nods his head in approbation of what I am saying. May it not be for the last time this evening.
The environmental impact of a centre can vary over time as a result of the intensification of its use. There can be alterations in operating patterns; different types of goods can be handled; different types of vehicles can be used. All those variations will change the circumstances under which the initial operating application was granted.
Therefore, we say that it is critical that the introduction of continuous licensing does not prejudice the environmental protection of which I have spoken. Under this amendment the licensing authority could terminate a licence in response to complaints about the environmental impact of a centre. On the assumption that Ministers may not support the proposal, I hope that in their opposition—I suppose I am anticipating the obvious—they will explain how they envisage that the continuous environmental controls could be achieved in the light of the new system that is being introduced under this Bill.
There is another, more general concern. The removal of the five-yearly review of an operator's licence could leave the system devoid of any mechanism for adequate control or monitoring. Who will enforce compliance with licensing conditions in the absence of a regular review procedure? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As in a number of these mini-debates, I very much share the noble Lord's concern to ensure that those who live in the vicinity of a goods vehicle operating centre do not suffer adverse environmental effects. I do not, however, think that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary to secure that objective.
Under the current system once a licensing authority is satisfied that the use of an operating centre would be appropriate, the successful licence holder is guaranteed the use of that centre at least up to the time when he re-applies for his licence, normally at the five-year point. At that time a licensing authority can decide whether an operating centre should continue to be authorised taking into account any material change that there has been in its use. The five-yearly review system under continuous licensing will provide a similar opportunity to check on the use to which operating centres are being put. That is my first point. The system will not be the same, because there will not be the need for reapplication as if it were a first-time applicant again; but there will be a five-yearly review system and that will give an opportunity to check on what has been happening. We do not believe that it would be right to subject operators to greater uncertainty as a result of the move to continuous licensing.

1331
That is not to say that the environmental impact of operating centres will go unchecked under the new system. In future, as now, a licensing authority will be able to place environmental conditions on an operator's licence in respect of the proposed operating centre. Those conditions could, for example, restrict the timing —as I have already mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—and methods of movements in and out, the number of vehicles normally kept at the centre and the on-site maintenance arrangements. If subsequently it were found that those conditions had been broken the licensing authority could revoke, suspend or reduce the scope of that operator's licence. The licensing authority will have the power to do that at any time, not only at the given five-year review stage. He will be able to act on information brought to his notice from any source, not just by statutory objectors but by members of the public as well.
These powers are sufficient at present to provide the necessary environmental safeguards for the 10 per cent. of operating centres which cause problems. They are not in any way affected by the proposals in this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord can accept my reassurances on these matters and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am extremely puzzled by that response. The response effectively is: nothing will change. I simply cannot accept that. On this matter the Minister has said nothing more, and it does not add to the Bill. It certainly does not subtract from the need for environmental security. In those circumstances, I think I ought to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 193) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hamwee, B.

Airedale, L.

Haskel, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Judd, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mar, C.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eatwell, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Foot, L.

Peston, L.

Geraint, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

[Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

[Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Halsbury, E.

Shepherd, L.

1332

Stedman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

White, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Kimball, L.

Addison, V.

Kintore, E.

Aldington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Alport, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Annaly, L.

Lindsay, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor, V.

Mancroft, L.

Balfour, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Blyth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boardman, L.

Munster, E.

Borthwick, L.

Nelson, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Newall, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Norrie, L.

Brentford, V.

Northbourne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northesk, E.

Burnham, L.

Orkney, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pender, L.

Courtown, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Cranborne, V.

Rennell, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Dundonald, E.

Selborne, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Elles, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Flather, B.

Strafford, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sudeley, L.

Harlech, L.

Teynham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Hayhoe, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Huntly, M.

Young, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.53 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 193ZA:
Page 31, line 32, at end insert ("provided that the licensing authority is of the opinion that the operator is of good repute.").
The noble Earl said: There is a requirement for an operator of a goods vehicle to be of good repute. That was first introduced in 1984 as a result, I believe, of EC legislation. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is desirable. Clause 35 of the Bill allows for indefinite duration of the operator's licence. We need to ensure that the operator continues to be of good repute. That is the problem that the amendment addresses. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is unnecessary and poorly drafted. He is probably right, as it is purely a probing amendment.
The man on the Clapham omnibus has no difficulty in identifying someone who is not of good repute. He simply asks himself the questions: "Would I allow my goods to be carried in his vehicle?" or "Would I ride in his cab?". The trouble is that the licensing authority does not seem to employ the same criteria and is extremely reluctant to revoke an operator's licence, even when to the man in the street the operator is not of good repute.
The cowboy operators are unfair to other operators. Clearly, if they are flouting the law, their operation costs, their costs per tonne mile, must be lower than a more professional operator. One of the tricks they may try is to tax their two-axle articulated tractor at the concessionary three-axle rate, thereby saving around £2,000. Lack of action on the matter encourages other operators to flout the law to some degree in order to remain competitive.
We frequently read reports in the trade press of cowboys with bad records coming before the licensing authority. They may have inadequate maintenance facilities; they may have numerous GV9 prohibitions, many of them marked "neglect", which means that it is not simply a breakdown that occurred on the road but that the problems have been in existence for a long time. There may be systematic abuse of drivers' hours regulations—they may have a switch that electrically cuts out the tachograph at certain times; the vehicle may be overloaded; or, as I mentioned earlier, there may be vehicle excise problems. Some operators have a combination of those faults.
Cowboy operators may have criminal convictions. In one specific case an operator was twice convicted of stealing articulated trailers yet still retained his good repute and his operator's licence. If the licensing authority does not revoke the licences of the cowboy operators, he damages the industry considerably. The cowboy operators will eventually go bust for other reasons. While they are in business they depress the market rate for transport. When they go bust another cowboy operator will come along and do exactly the same.
The LA is reluctant to revoke a licence and may feel that it is putting the employees of the operator out of work. But I suggest that that is a false argument. An operator may have 10 drivers, each of whom is driving one hour in 10 too many; that means that he is driving 10 per cent. too much. The cowboy operator with 10 drivers is therefore taking away one man's living because there should be another driver on the road. The operator who inadequately maintains his vehicles should perhaps employ another fitter properly to maintain and repair the vehicle so that it can be safely operated.
The licensing authority may feel that it should give the operator one last chance—we see that comment in reports. But the cowboy operator is taking one last chance. He is trying one more dodge to keep in operation a little longer.
The cowboy operator may be ignorant, but he may also be incompetent; he may never be able to operate his fleet or his single vehicle properly. Therefore the LA should consider immediately rejecting the licence.
1334
Society does not expect operators to be of ill repute. When suppliers supply an operator with spare parts, batteries, tyres and so forth, they expect to be paid. A cowboy operator will probably not pay his suppliers. The drivers expect to be paid properly, yet frequently we hear stories of drivers working for an unscrupulous operator and either not being paid at all or not being paid the amount of money originally agreed. Customers should not be exposed to unscrupulous operators, who may lose either the whole load or part of it.
Road haulage is quite a good small business which can be run by one-man band operators. They are called owner-drivers. They can have perfectly good maintenance facilities, they can have their truck maintained by a proper garage or a dealer and they can buy new equipment, but they cannot do that if they have to compete with cowboy operators. The Minister has power under Section 59(2) of the 1968 Act to direct the licensing authorities. Presumably he can direct the LAs on matters of policy, though it would not be appropriate for him to intervene in an individual case. But it seems clear that the licensing authorities are not tough enough against cowboy operators. It should be down to the Minister or the Secretary of State to put pressure on the licensing authorities and the chief licensing authority to revoke more licences. That would deter cowboy operators.
I should have liked to put: down an amendment on county court judgments. When we look at the various pieces of legislation on this matter we see that good repute has nothing to do with county court judgments. An operator can have dozens of county court judgments against him. Nowhere in the legislation does it specifically say that the operator must not have county court judgments against him. I did not put down such an amendment because that would have increased the amount of regulation and the purpose of the Bill is deregulation. The Clerks therefore advised me that I could not do that.
When the Minister comes to reply he may refer to multi-agency checks. He has frequently made great play with such checks. I am sure that they are very efficient but he must admit that fewer inspectors are carrying out these multi-agency checks. If we cut out the cowboys by revoking their licences sooner, there would be less need to have multi-agency checks. Some of the checks can take an operator off the road for a considerable amount of time. I have heard reports that the checks can take two hours. That is excessive. If the Government want to deregulate they should try to avoid these checks. The best way to avoid the checks is to cut out the cowboy operators.
In conclusion, the licensing authorities must be more prepared to revoke. That will reduce the number of cowboys. It may be argued that, if one revokes the licence of an operator, he will simply operate without a licence. That is true. On a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, moved an amendment to allow for the confiscation of vehicles operating without an operator's licence. Unfortunately, the Government did not agree with that amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am glad that in his introduction the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that this is a probing amendment. We are discussing the matter of an operator's reputation—that he should be "of good repute". The noble Earl catalogued a number of offences, most of which are technical and are already covered by the responsibilities of the licensing authority. I refer to maintenance and so on. I endorse that but I do not feel that that has anything to do with what is set out on the Marshalled List. An earlier amendment, Amendment No. 192A, sought to ensure that the licensing authority has a duty to make sure that matters put on the application form for a licence shall be correct. My noble friend the Minister explained why he did not feel that that was necessary. This amendment falls into a very similar category and deserves a similar answer.
I thank the noble Earl for bringing the matter before the Committee so that we can say—and it can be reported in the trade press—that we are asking the commissioners to be more diligent and more forceful in enforcement and in the use of the powers they already have with regard to maintenance or where the licence holder loses his good reputation by some action at some time. It could be a brawl in the night club. If a man has a conviction for something of that nature I do not think he is of good repute. That should be taken into consideration in the review of the licence, and that can happen at any time. We have already heard from my noble friend that anyone can go to the traffic commissioners and raise an objection. Such an objection may concern the site—for example, where the operator is dropping oil all over the road—or the kind of instance which lies behind the noble Earl's amendment. I would not like the matter to go further and have it placed on the face of the Bill but I should like the Minister to assure us that enforcement, which is not altered by Virtue of the Bill, will be diligently applied.
Lord Clinton-Davis: There is a great deal of force in what the noble Earl had to say in introducing the amendment. I, too, await the Minister's response with some interest.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before I turn to the main burden of the noble Earl's amendment, perhaps I may deal with one point which stands aside a little from the amendment. The noble Earl asked whether the Minister can direct the licensing authority. The answer is yes. Under Section 59(2) of the 1968 Act the Secretary of State has the power to make general directions in relation to the exercise by a licensing authority of his function. I have to go on and say that no such directions have ever been made, as licensing authorities use their powers in a manner which ensures that they adequately control the behaviour of operators. But the power does exist if ever Ministers thought it was necessary.
There are, as I think the noble Earl is well aware, broadly two types of goods vehicle operator licences. One is a standard licence and the other is a restricted licence. A standard licence is required if an operator
1336
intends to carry goods for hire or reward. Largely, we have been discussing a standard licence holder. A restricted licence is all that is required if an operator intends to confine his activities to carrying his own goods. Under regulations made pursuant to EC directives an applicant for a standard licence must show that he, or where appropriate the directors of a company and transport managers, is of good repute. If it appears to the licensing authority that the operator is no longer of good repute he must revoke the licence. The legislation does not require an operator to be of good repute as such in order to obtain a restricted licence. The Bill does not change that but Clause 33 as drafted makes it clear that a licensing authority can refuse an application if it appears to him that an operator is not fit by virtue of his past transport related conduct. In addition, a licensing authority may at any time take disciplinary action against an operator by revoking, suspending or curtailing his licence if he has been convicted of a transport related offence.
I hope that I have answered some of the noble Earl's questions about the kind of conviction that may occur and whether, so to speak, an operator could get off scot-free. Apart from what the court decided to do, the short answer is that he could not. The licensing authority has the power at any time to take disciplinary action, even going as far as revoking the licence if the licence holder has been convicted of transport related offences which the licensing authority considers are of sufficient severity to take the step of revocation.
Earl Attlee: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out that the amendment was perhaps not appropriate or in the wrong place. I accepted that in my introduction. He mentioned a brawl in a club. For that kind of thing an operator may not lose his good repute if it is totally unrelated to good operation.
The Minister referred to restricted licences. I am sure that he is aware that there can be problems with operators operating with such licences. For instance, they could be engaged in general haulage even though they have a restricted licence. It is not legal, but they can do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before ten minutes past eight.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: At the very commencement of today's proceedings I pointed out that five-and-a-half pages of amendments had been added between the fourth and fifth Committee days. I also added, in tribute to the facility of invention, that none of them was a very extensive amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, will remember that in the other place there was a Motion to report progress. The progress we have made now at ten minutes past seven is to complete approximately half of the extra load which was put on the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Religious Education: Specialist Teachers
7.12 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to remedy the shortage of specialist teachers of religious education.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to speak to this Question, I do so in the shadow of what I understood was said by the Secretary of State at the meeting yesterday. That leads me to suppose that it may be necessary to demonstrate that there is in fact a shortage of specialist teachers in religious education. That is easily done by quotation from Religious Education and Collective Worship, a report from the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, 1992–93.
Your Lordships will forgive me if in the brief time allocated I quote selectively. Clearly I am not going to mention a lot of very creditable things to which credit should nevertheless be given. In relation to visits to primary schools the report shows that in relation to,
"at least 20 per cent. of schools the teaching of—
religious education, which I shall henceforth call RE—
"was negligible and in others no RE was taught to some of the classes; in total only 50 per cent of schools provided RE which was satisfactory or better overall; RE was rarely accorded the status within the primary curriculum prescribed in law, and progression and continuity were lacking; a high proportion of teachers lacked the confidence, expertise, enthusiasm and interest to teach the subject effectively; many had volunteered because they valued the contribution of RE to the pupils' moral and social education"—
that at least one can applaud. The report continues:
"a substantial amount of religious education was characterised by unsatisfactory management, co-ordination and planning; insufficient time allocations; poor resources; and inadequate provision for in-service training which failed to raise the expertise and confidence of staff from a low base line; assessment, recording and reporting procedures were at a very early stage of development and in many cases non-existent".
In secondary schools visits showed that,
"RE was offered to all pupils in Key Stage 3 [but] Standards of attainment were slightly less good than expected at this stage, largely because of great variations in the knowledge and understanding which pupils brought from their primary schools".
That highlights the crisis—that is perhaps not too strong a word—in the primary schools illustrated by the first extracts which I have read. The summary of the report continues:
"the vast majority of secondary schools did not provide enough time to teach the agreed syllabus in Key Stage 4 and few provided a basic RE course for post-16 students".
I now refer to specialist teachers, which is the phrase to which I direct my noble friend's attention in this context:
"specialist teachers were generally effective and were responsible for the good work seen in examination courses. Much teaching of basic RE was in the hands of non-specialists and they were inadequately supported by current documentation in schools and the lack of appropriate INSET support".
That is the situation as reported by Her Majesty's own inspectors in this country in their latest report.
Turning to Wales, and at rather less length, we find that in the report by HMI on a survey of religious education in the core curriculum in the secondary schools of Wales, inspected in the summer term 1993 —which is again the latest report available—it is stated that:
1338
"In a substantial minority of schools a varying proportion or' the work in the year 7 to 9 is narrow in scope and generally undemanding in nature. In many (though not all) cases, a significant contributory factor"—
again I invite my noble friend's particular attention to this—
"is the involvement of non-specialist teachers with a small commitment to the teaching of the subject".
The report goes on:
"Other deficiencies include … in the majority of schools, no religious education provision for pupils in the year 12 to 13".
If further evidence is needed it is more difficult to glean because of the welter of statistics through which one has to wade in the context of other work. But I see that a collation of Table 18 of the 1992 Secondary School Staffing Survey for England and Table 5.8 of the Welsh Education Statistics Bulletin No. 7 shows that, of those who teach religious education in England and Wales, 25 per cent. have a relevant degree, 10 per cent. have only a subsidiary qualification and about 60 per cent. have no formal qualification in the subject whatever.
I draw that to your Lordships' attention in the wake of the publication of the SCAA proposals and recommended syllabuses by the schools curriculum advisory authority. It recommends that Christianity should be taught, together with two or three other religions, before year 11. I ask noble Lords to consider what that represents to an unqualified teacher, faced with delivering those disparate subjects of crucial relationship to each other and of intimate importance to the pupils' view of the world in which they live and of their own journey through this life, and without any formal qualification in the subject at all.
It cannot be said that there is not a dire shortage, whatever may be said to the contrary. If we are told to the contrary, I advise my noble friend and the Secretary of State as they stand on the platform to turn away from the timetable and look at the railway track. They should not look at what the intentions are but at what the product is. Teachers will tell you that these trains are not running much better than they were on Wednesday— that is today in fact.
I can add a little to this in two respects. I do not believe that it is necessary to harangue your Lordships about the importance of religious education, particularly in the light of the long debates which we have had in this House on the subject when passing legislation. But it is a matter of greater importance than almost any other at the stage of life when one comes to weigh up what it has all been about; and that is what we are preparing for.
But does the training matter, or can enthusiasm and conviction carry the day with children of whatever age? I came into teaching in 1960, when it was sufficient to have a degree in order to be able to teach. My degree was in history and I taught it with some satisfaction to myself and, I think, to my pupils—at least they performed pretty well by the standards which my noble friend the Minister endorses. That might have been because they were presented to me through the selective system, which my noble friend would perhaps like to reconstruct—and I would not obstruct her in that. Nevertheless, I came into teaching as a graduate

1339
historian and was able to teach history without too much difficulty—with a bit of training from the Army on how to keep order!
I came to religious education teaching because I was required to help out. I did not have the training and my enthusiasm and conviction carried me a certain way, but no further. To this day I lament the opportunities that I missed, the ground that I did not till and the seeds that I did not sow during that time. If one is not confident of one's ability in a subject, no matter how gifted one may be one cannot teach it well because one needs confidence in one's ability in a subject to be able to teach it well, not merely conviction that the subject itself is worth teaching.
Therefore, I believe that it is of great importance that we should have a sufficient number of trained people to teach religious education; that it was of great importance when I was a fledgling teacher and that it is of very much greater importance now because of the infinitely more demanding and complex task which teachers will have to face in the future if the model syllabuses are to be adopted.
There are a number of routes which my noble friend and my right honourable friend could pursue in this respect. The first relates to initial teacher training. They could expand the volume of courses available. No doubt my noble friend will say something about that. I think that it is important to attract students into such courses. That would have a hidden benefit as well as a direct benefit. The direct benefit would be more qualified teachers; the indirect benefit would be more examination classes in religious education in schools. Perhaps I may reassure my noble friend by saying that I am allowed 10 minutes and that I do not propose to use all of them, so there is no need to get excited yet.
The hidden advantage arises because if there are course vacancies leading to a qualification to teach and therefore a job, more schools will lay on courses and examination classes for those subjects. It is having an examination class in a subject which gives that subject status within a school. How much the headmaster or headmistress endorses the subject or the enthusiasm with which it is taught in the classroom does not matter. If the teaching is not going to lead to a CSE, GSE, O-level or A-level—and it is the A-level that is the real magnet—the subject is not regarded as a status subject and will not attract students, pupils or teachers. That would be the additional benefit.
We should also recognise that, once qualified, teachers teach for a heck of a long time—for many years. Therefore, it is no good improving the input because, if in our lifetime we want to see an improvement in the output, we must train teachers in post to teach religious education as a specialist subject. I am referring to those who are prepared to teach it and who are not so qualified at the moment.
With that introduction to show the seriousness of the matter, I hope that my noble friend will allow me to sit down nine minutes after standing up.
7.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for tabling this Unstarred Question at such a timely moment. It is timely because, as he pointed out, yesterday saw the launch of the new model syllabuses framed by the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority. That launch was described in the Independent this morning as an historic agreement between the representatives of the faith communities and the professional religious educational bodies. I see that launch as having great significance. I believe that it will greatly raise the profile of religious education.
I should like to express my appreciation of the Government's support for the model syllabuses which was voiced yesterday by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. They represent a wide consensus both among faith communities and profes-sionals in the field. The launch represents a moment of great opportunity. We may couple with it the requirement which Sir Ron Dearing has expressed that 5 per cent. of teaching time should be given to religious education. I should like to express my thanks also to Sir Ron Dearing and to the staff of SCAA for their work in the whole area of RE.
However, we have to contrast—the noble Lord has already done this—the great moment of opportunity which is here now with the past and present situation. I shall not go into the figures which the noble Lord has already given, but I shall underline their significance and point out that the 1992–93 report was preceded by other reports showing an equal disarray in the teaching of religious education in both secondary and primary schools. The points that the noble Lord mentioned echoed those made in earlier reports.
Furthermore, that applies not only to reports from HMI but also to reports from SACRE, which indicate precisely the same situation. In 1992, only three SACREs were reasonably satisfied with the provision of RE specialists in secondary schools. Elsewhere, there was noted a great shortage of RE teachers. And if those two pieces of evidence were not enough, the survey by Culham College indicates exactly the same situation. It is clearly the case that the hopes of the Education Reform Act that religious education would have a substantial place in teaching in our schools is not being fulfilled.
It appears from the reports that religious education as a subject has low esteem and that there is a failure to teach it properly. We hope that the model syllabuses and SCAA's recommendations will lift the situation. Perhaps I may ask the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that SCAA's recommendations, particularly over the percentage of teaching time, will be delivered.
However, delivery depends upon teachers to deliver. I hope that we shall not become further embroiled this evening in the wrangle over whether there is a shortage. I know that the DFE has resisted that. But as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, it is clear from the evidence that the subject is not being delivered as it ought to be. That is the question that we have to address.

1341
There may be many reasons why teachers flow out of the subject. It may be because RE teachers are promoted more than other teachers. It may be due to the low esteem of the subject, to which I have already referred, or to insufficient in-service opportunities. Perhaps it is due to a combination of all of those, plus other factors. However, there is undoubtedly a problem, and failure to address it will both undermine the Government's intentions and frustrate the hopes of many of us who believe that this is a moment when the profile of RE can be raised.
I should like to reverse the two proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He began with initial teacher training. I should like to begin with in-service training. It seems to me that that is where an immediate impact might be made. We need a major in-service training initiative to ensure both that non-specialist teachers in secondary schools have further professional training and that training is provided for those who are appointed as co-ordinators in primary schools and for those often enthusiastic but not necessarily qualified teachers who teach in primary schools. I echo what the noble Lord said. Enthusiasm is not enough.
The syllabuses about which we are speaking—I am delighted to see that the Minister is carrying her copy with her—are in two forms. The first puts strong emphasis on the content of belief and the second places the emphasis on entering into the experience of that belief. They both require teachers with more than enthusiasm, and—dare I say it?—more than personal faith. They require teachers with professional equipment. In-service training is the immediate route towards providing that equipment. It is possible that there may be bodies outside the statutory authority which might be able to help. Here I instance the Culham College—
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the right reverend Prelate, but the clock is moving on.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I have noticed, and I shall bring my remarks to an end. Also, ITT provision needs to be addressed in the long term. I underline once again what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, and hope that the Minister can give us some satisfaction in her reply.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have only a few minutes in which to speak. Even in that short time, I feel that I must say how fortunate we are to have a debate of this kind introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, contributed to by the right reverend Prelate, and wound up by two such strong Christians as the Minister and my noble friend Lord Judd. I do not remember a time when the Government Front Bench and my Front Bench were represented more strongly, in a Christian sense, than they are today. I am glad to be able to pay that tribute to the Minister for various reasons. One reason is that it enables me to pay a tribute to Mr. Patten, otherwise people might suspect me of some sort of Roman Catholic plot. In fact I greatly admire the stand that he is taking over right and wrong. He is unlikely again to call some eminent man a nutter. He chose the
1342
wrong man. If he called me a nutter, I should have told him that I had been called that many times without anyone even noticing it. He was unlucky there.
I must testify briefly. I take my stand on the emphasis placed on Christianity as the country's main religion in the 1988 Act. We should never forget the part played by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is no doubt entering a danger zone tonight in some far off country. We should never forget the initiative she took, which resulted in Christianity being included for the first time in the 1988 Act.
I hope that I shall not annoy anyone too much here, but I wish to make the strongest possible denunciation of that ludicrous concept "multi-faith". The idea that this is a multi-faith country is frankly absurd. It obviously emanates from humanist quarters, not from the minority religions. We know from the last poll that 3.8 per cent. of the population belongs to a religion other than Christian, and all good luck to them. To say that we are multi-faith because 3.8 per cent. of the people belong to some other religions is totally absurd. I hope that we shall hear no more of that multi-faith nonsense now or ever.
I return to the teaching that is to be supplied. I submit strongly that there is no alternative ethical doctrine which can be introduced to young people in our schools except the Christian doctrine. I assume that Moslems, Jews and others will go to their own schools, but the only ethics available for the schools of the country are Christian ethics. No one will now suggest that school children can be brought up on Plato, desirable though that might be when they reach university, and still less, perhaps, on the teachings of Karl Marx, who I suppose is a bit discredited nowadays, even in Russia.
If there is to be any ethical teaching at all, it should be Christian teaching. Most of us in this country will agree that there has been wonderful material progress. I believe that the redistribution of wealth in favour of the poor is a great advance. But the morals of this country have undoubtedly declined in the past 50 years.. There has been an increase of crime alongside that. We must try to do what we can to ensure that our children are brought up with Christian morals. When I say "Christian morals", I mean among things—only among other things—a belief that sex outside marriage is wrong, fornication is wrong and adultery is wrong, so if they are to be taught any morals at all that should be included in the message.
That is only one part of morals. There is no morality available to the masses of our children other than the Christian morality. I hope and believe that that will be pressed more and more strongly by this Government and a Labour Government represented in the future, I hope, by my noble friend Lord Judd, and perhaps by a very strong Christian like Mr. Blair, but perhaps I should not become involved in that subject. At any rate, there it is. Christianity should be the main message in our schools. I hope that the Government will tell us that this evening.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for having missed his first few remarks as I rushed into the Chamber. I am afraid that I do not quite have the knack of ensuring that I am here for these dinner break Unstarred Questions. The Unstarred Question refers to the shortage of teachers. The noble Lord put his finger squarely on the root of the problem which is that for many people religious education is a secondary subject which is tagged on to academic achievement. Schools, for better or worse, are primarily about academic achievement. That is becoming increasingly part of the way the profession is organised.
As the noble Lord so rightly said, unless we give the teachers more status—and from what I have seen of professional teachers he is right when he says that status comes from taking people to exam level—we shall not provide sufficient impetus at all levels of education to ensure that there are sufficient teachers. As for short-term measures to try to address the problem, the Government can look realistically only to some form of in-service training and opt-out for those non-specialists who find themselves having to meet curriculum requirements. If there is no initial interest, we cannot expect teachers to do a decent job without knowledge. Someone may be able to recite a lesson to children, but real teaching begins when the teacher is asked a question and has to answer it intelligently. That means not just the first question, but the second question. Such ability can come only through training. Unless teachers are given that ability through training, they will lose out.
The SCAA recommendations have already been widely praised. They show what religious education should be about. It is a study of the majority faith of the country. I agree that when we say "multi-faith" we should be clear about what we mean. There are strong sections of other faiths in society, but our society is predominantly Christian. A knowledge of Judaism is almost essential to an understanding of the Christian faith. If the subject is being taken through, a study of Islam follows on as all three religions have a common stream and even have historical links.
If we can give that type of teaching and training we shall help solve many of the problems that face our society. I am talking about intolerance, because, once one starts to understand something, one begins to disagree with others as opposed to just denouncing them on the basis of opinion rather than knowledge. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that some positive steps are being taken to encourage better informed teachers to do the job that is necessary, because, without themselves having the information, they cannot impart it to their pupils.
7.37 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for introducing this debate at this time. Religious education teachers play an important part, if not the most important part, in trying to improve the teaching of religious education in this country. I assume that the Question deals primarily with
1344
secondary schools because specialist RE teachers are secondary school teachers, as my noble friend the Minister told us on 15th February that primary school teachers are generalists not specialists.
I should like first to ask my noble friend if when she replies she can elaborate one thing she said to us on 15th February. She said:
"It is true, however, that of 13,100 religious education specialists in the country, only half were teaching their own subject".—[Official Report, 15/2/94; col. 92.]
Will she elaborate on the reason for that? I believe that the right reverend Prelate touched, as have others, upon the status of RE teachers. Is it just that, or are there other reasons behind the shortage?
It is sad that we are teaching people to be RE specialists but that they are not exercising their skill for the benefit of students today. Is that largely because of animosity against RE? Is it because the subject is being denigrated whether by teachers or generally? The press has dealt a certain amount with the issue and, if it is true, what can Parliament, the Government or anyone else do to change that negative attitude on what is an important subject?
In practice, there appears to be a shortage of religious education specialists. Teachers with no academic or professional training are covering the subject. Do we need to change attitudes in order to obtain the best trained professional people to teach this subject?
What is the attitude to the teaching of RE in colleges of education? I do not believe that colleges of education have been mentioned but they must be an important part of the problem. Is there a positive and encouraging attitude in those colleges to the teaching of RE? Are they teaching that RE must reflect the fact that the religious traditions in this country are in the main Christian, obviously taking account of other religions?
I wish to reiterate what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford: that 80 to 90 per cent. of the population claim a form of Christian adherence and only 3 to 4 per cent. adhere to a non-Christian faith. We should be teaching predominantly the Christian faith, and I take that to be 50 to 75 per cent. Provided that in any three-year period not more than two other religions are being considered, that gives a reasonable balance. RE teachers should be taught about those issues.
There appears to be a difference of view on the value of school-based teacher training as opposed to purely college training. That must depend on the role models which are available in any school where the school-based training is taking place. I have noted the Smallpiece school-based teacher training scheme for technology teachers. There are satisfactory examples relating to school-based training and I hope mat they can be used for the improvement of religious education training.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Elton for giving us this timely opportunity to discuss these important matters. We know that some schools with atheist head teachers are refusing to teach religious education. Many more have a mish-mash

1345
approach which submerges Christianity beneath a weight of non-Christian religions. It is important that things are kept in perspective. According to the ninth report of British Social Attitudes, only 3.1 per cent. of the population adhere to a non-Christian faith and 91.8 per cent. say that they were brought up in the Christian faith. Other surveys regularly show an 80 to 90 per cent. allegiance to Christianity.
Young people are leaving schools with a shockingly poor level of knowledge of Christianity. In 1991, a MORI poll found that 57 per cent. of 18 to 24 year-olds could not say what happened on Good Friday and 62 per cent. had never heard of Pontius Pilate. A poll conducted in 1993 by Gallup found that 76 per cent. of 16 to 24 year-olds had never heard of the Ascension, with 71 per cent. not knowing what Palm Sunday commemorates. Barely a majority knew that Judas betrayed Jesus.
Those figures are absolutely appalling. We would not tolerate it if 75 per cent. of school leavers did not know that London is the capital of Britain. Why should we accept such pathetically poor knowledge of the Christian faith?
I believe that the problem is most serious at secondary level. In a recent report, school inspectors found that primary school religious education,
"focused almost exclusively on Christianity".
It is multi-faith approaches in secondary schools which destroy all the good work of the primary school teachers. Yesterday the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority launched what it calls "national model syllabuses for religious education". These proposals represent a betrayal of our nation's Christian heritage. The SCAA proposals advocate that by the age of 11 children should normally study two or three non-Christian faiths in addition to Christianity. That is absolutely ridiculous. Today our young people are not even getting to grips with Christianity, let alone with three non-Christian religions by the age of 11. I was shattered to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon say that he supports the proposals. They are an utter disgrace and the Government and the Church of England should be thoroughly ashamed of them—
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Will he accept that the major problem in relation to teaching in particular in primary schools is not that there is too much teaching of other faiths but that in some schools there is no teaching of religious education?
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, in a way I agree with the right reverend Prelate, but if more non-Christian religion is taught that is likely to confuse the issue. The primary aim is to give our students a clear knowledge of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. The appalling figures that I have given show that we have not even achieved that. It seems to me that it is a case of first things first and that we must get that right before we start teaching alternative faiths.
The Government should distance themselves from the SCAA model syllabuses. The Church of England
1346
should be ashamed of lending its support to an RE scheme which does not even require Christianity to be taught for 50 per cent. of the time.
Anxiety has been raised about the shortage of resources for religious education. In my view, the main issue is one of compliance with the law. Government statistics have shown that 6,500 fully qualified teachers of religious education have been switched to teach other subjects. The Government should address this problem by challenging schools which break the law. Has not the time come to fine schools which fail to teach religious education? Secondary schools are required to teach 11 subjects but some of them are teaching only 10. The question is: what are schools doing with the money that should be spent on religious education teachers?
The demand for RE teachers has been suppressed because head teachers are not giving the subject proper time on the timetable. As the law is enforced more teachers will be needed. Many of the 6,500 teachers could then be switched back to RE. My Lords, I have noted the time and I have almost finished.
I ask the Minister of State to ensure that any money spent on in-service training goes to promoting the implementation of the law and not a multi-faith mish-mash. A clear priority is to develop new ways of training teachers. The existing teacher training colleges have not had a good record. They seem to be very keen on a relativistic approach to religious education where Christianity is given the same attention as other faiths.
Above all, the Government must stand firm on Christianity. All European countries, save France, have religious education which is almost entirely Christian. Britain already has the most multi-faith religious education in Europe, without the new SCAA proposals being adopted. Parliament has given its legislative backing to predominantly Christian RE. It is up to the Government and the Churches to see that the law is implemented.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for raising this very important subject this evening. As he reminded us, across the road yesterday Sir Ron Dearing and representatives of a cross-section of religious faiths launched the new model syllabuses for religious education. The syllabuses obviously have immense implications in relation to any ability to recruit sufficient teachers of the right quality. We shall now have to see how effective they prove in meeting what potential teachers see as the immense challenges for young people in our multicultural society. I hope that my noble friend will at least accept the word "multicultural".
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we are in fact a multicultural society. We must recognise that we have become a multicultural society.
The Earl of Longford: Since when?
Lord Judd: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, those of us who profess to be Christians must

1347
remember that others who are not Christians see us as members of other faiths. It is not logical to assume that members of other faiths are always people who are not Christians because there are people who are not Christians who see Christians as members of faiths different from their own. If we are to meet the challenge of the kind of society in which we live, we must recognise and understand that point.
Religious education is a far more demanding discipline than teaching religion, let alone religious instruction. It requires understanding and insight into a range of faiths. It also needs understanding and recognition of the significant and principal traditions of humanism and rationalism. That does not mean that we have to accept them but we must understand their place in the total order of society.
As the Religious Education Council of England and Wales put it, religious education must play:
"a vital part in the development not only of individuals but also of the mutual understanding and respect necessary to a harmonious and plural society".
Indeed, as the National Council of Hindu Temples expressed the matter:
"What hope can there be for good community relations without the possibility of mutual understanding generated by good education? We are not in the business of converting pupils to Hinduism but we are concerned that all young people in our society should have some understanding of our ancient tradition and know something of the people who practise that tradition in Britain".
As the right reverend Prelate has very properly said, the demands of religious education are certainly far too great for them to be left to the enthusiastic amateur or, indeed, to the press-ganged non-specialist. That is why the statistics are so disturbing.
In support of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I should like to draw on some statistics which the Department for Education has made available in its Statistical Bulletin 24/93 Teachers' Qualifications and Deployment in Maintained Secondary Schools in England 1992. As I understand it from the department's's own analysis, only 19 per cent. of religious education teachers have a degree in the subject. Overall, 30 per cent. of secondary school teachers have a degree in the subject that they teach; so that is not a good comparison. Only 26 per cent. of religious education teaching was taught by a teacher who had a degree in the subject compared with the average of 29 per cent. for all subjects. A mere estimated 3 per cent. of tuition was in religious education. For 11 to 13 year-olds, 23 per cent. of religious education lessons were taught by a teacher with religious education as a main subject—26 per cent. is the comparison for all subjects—and it occupies 3.7 per cent. of the time. For the last two years of compulsory secondary education, 28 per cent. of religious education lessons were taught by a teacher with religious education of a main subject with 2.5 per cent. of tuition time. None of us can be complacent about statistics like that.
What have been the special barriers to the recruitment of teachers of religious education? I suggest that there have been four barriers. There may be others but four have caught my attention. First, there is a lack of in-service training for religious education. At the
1348
launch yesterday whenever that was mentioned there was warm applause from all present. Although the grants for education support and training scheme has a programme covering the basic curriculum which includes religious education, that fund needs urgently to be enlarged.
Secondly, the tendency for religious education to be portrayed by some government spokespeople as virtually synonymous with moral instruction has not helped. It has proved a daunting prospect for potential teachers.
Thirdly, it is arguable—and it has been put to me —that the syllabuses to date have been too prescriptive and have replicated too much the over-prescription in the national curriculum subject orders which are currently under review. We shall have to see what the new syllabuses have done to put that right.
Fourthly, the introduction of the national curriculum has meant inevitably that religious education has been squeezed in schools. Teachers naturally want to feel that their subject has a high status and is recognised by the whole world of education.
In the last few moments at my disposal perhaps I may draw to the attention of the House some ideas that have been put forward on how that could be tackled. Again, I draw on the excellent thinking of the Religious Education Council of England and Wales.
First, it looks at targeted recruitment for initial teacher training: to designate and resource religious education as a "shortage" subject; to target special interest groups—for example, mature students, who are more likely to see the relevance of learning about and from religion; and also to target the principal faith communities. It has also argued for more in-service training; to extend present DFE funding for short courses; to encourage self-help, with clusters of primary and secondary teachers learning from specialists, each other, and from local faith communities. It has also emphasised the importance of changed attitudes to religious education by stressing its educational—I repeat the word "educational"—nature. The new syllabuses about which we heard yesterday are intended to deal with that. In so far as they achieve that, we shall all welcome them.
I conclude with the words of SPCK in 1970, because I believe that they are powerful words. As a professing Christian, I find them reassuring. It said:
'To press for acceptance of a particular faith or belief system is the duty and privilege of the Churches and other similar religious bodies. It is certainly not the task of a teacher in a county school. If the teacher is to press for any conversion, it is conversion from a shallow and unreflective view of life. If [the teacher] is to press for commitment, it is commitment to … that search for meaning, purpose, and value which is open to all".
When we have an approach which matches that challenge, we shall have the context in which we can begin to make good the shortages which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is so right to draw to our attention this evening.
7.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for initiating this short debate

1349
on a subject which I know causes anxiety. But I must say to my noble friend that I am in the most impossible position. I simply cannot reply satisfactorily to the debate in the time that I have been given. Therefore I shall give what I know will be an inadequate reply and perhaps we may be allowed to return to the debate on another occasion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would it be helpful to the Minister to have a debate on the SCAA proposals in the near future, because they are a matter of great concern?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should welcome that personally; but the decision about that must rest with the usual channels. I shall do what I can to persuade them to agree to such a debate.
Your Lordships will be well aware of the Government's own commitment to religious education. That reflects a personal conviction on my part, and on the part of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that religious education, with Christianity at its heart, forms an essential part of the broad and balanced curriculum to which all pupils are entitled.
For too long, religious education has been a neglected subject in many schools. We saw ample evidence of that in the Ofsted's recent report, Religious Education and Collective Worship, which drew largely from inspections in 1992–93. The report made clear that much needs to be done to improve the standing of religious education, and the quality of RE work in schools.
It is a helpful sign that new syllabuses developed in response to the requirements of the Education Reform Act were having a positive effect in some areas; and that teaching by specialist teachers, particularly in examination courses at GCSE and A-level, was generally effective.
What are the Government doing to help secure the improvements that we wish to see? In a few minutes' time I shall deal with the supply of specialist teachers. First, I should like briefly to outline some of the initiatives that have been taken centrally to underline the importance of RE and help schools fully meet their statutory obligations.
The department's circular 1/94, issued in January, gave guidance on the law relating to religious education to all maintained schools. The law requires that religious education must be in accordance with locally agreed syllabuses, that they reflect the main Christian religious traditions of this country but also give attention to the other principal religions represented. The circular also set out clearly and fully the responsibilities of head teachers, governing bodies and, where appropriate, local education authorities to see that religious education, as part of the basic curriculum of schools, is given sufficient time and resources.
Schools, the standing conferences, and others, will have been assisted by the final report of Sir Ron Dearing on the National Curriculum and Assessment published in December 1993. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, did not give voice to that fact. The one thing that Sir Ron Dearing has done is to give religious education equal status with foundation subjects in the national
1350
curriculum; in other words, that religious education should receive the same time allocation as other foundation subjects.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I readily acknowledge that fact.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said, the latter gave indicative allocations of curriculum time for each national curriculum subject, plus religious education at each key stage. Sir Ron's allocations for RE amounted to about 5 per cent. of curriculum time.
The allocations have informed the work of slimming down the subjects of the national curriculum, which is now well in hand; and the allocations for religious education have informed development of the national model syllabuses for RE which were launched yesterday by SCAA. Local authorities and standing conferences will no doubt have an eye to Sir Ron's advice in reviewing their own syllabuses. It gives a clear signal to schools that RE must be taken no less seriously than subjects of the national curriculum.
The model syllabuses themselves, launched yester-day, were drawn up by members of the Christian denominations and other faith communities themselves, with the help of teachers. Perhaps I may tell my noble friend Lord Ashbourne—and I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said—that they are not government syllabuses. The role of the Schools Curriculum Assessment Authority has been one of a facilitator. The consensus reached on such an important subject is a considerable achievement; indeed, it was quite an achievement that there was a consensus at all.
The syllabuses are not imposed as a national blueprint, but offered to local syllabus conferences as a possible way of creating a syllabus that is educationally rigorous and conforms with legal requirements, but is flexible enough to respond to local needs.
Ofsted will also play a part in securing improvements in RE through its inspections of schools—which, as noble Lords are aware, will cover every school at least: once every four years. Monitoring the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils, including their religious education, is one of Ofsted's central statutory inspection duties. Each inspection report will comment on the quality of the school's provision in that area and, if necessary, identify action which must be taken by the governing body to remedy deficiencies. I was encouraged to hear that the Ofsted report was discussed at some length by the heads of grant-maintained schools at their conference last week, with contributions from my noble friend Lady Cox and Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
In Wales, I understand that all local education authorities have now reviewed their locally agreed syllabuses, but will be able to make use of the models launched recently if they wish. In Scotland, national guidelines for religious and moral education were issued in 1992 and HMI in Scotland has published recently recommendations for improving RE teaching. In Northern Ireland, a core syllabus to Key Stage 3 was introduced last September, and one to Key Stage 4 is due to be introduced in 1995.

1351
That brings me to the principal point of my noble friend Lord Elton; namely, that schools cannot be expected to provide religious education properly without an adequate supply of specialist RE teachers. It is a point with which Ministers are very conversant. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State discussed this and other matters a few weeks ago with the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Ripon, following his appointment as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Guildford, has raised the matter more than once. The Religious Education Council and the Reverend Dr. Gay, Director of Culham College Institute, have been corresponding with my right honourable friend; and we have seen the most recent report of Dr. Brian Gates for the Religious Education Council.
The Government seek to ensure that there is an adequate supply of qualified teachers so that the national curriculum, RE and other educational requirements are delivered effectively. In general, the present position is satisfactory, with teacher numbers increasing, vacancies at very low levels and recruitment to initial teacher training at historically high levels. But teacher supply is a complex question, requiring consideration of pupil projections, the qualifications and deployment of teachers in service, age and wastage profiles, recruitment to initial teacher training, the resources available for training and recruiting teachers, and other factors. It is important, when resources are finite and there is competition for good candidates from other employers, that the fullest use is made of the teaching skills and qualifications already available to schools. The attitude taken by heads of schools is absolutely critical in such affairs. If the head of a school gives priority to the subject, there is a will to make it happen. Where there is a will to make it happen, it happens.
In 1992 there were more than 15,000 full-time and part-time teachers in English secondary schools with post-A level qualifications in RE. More than 13,000 were full-time teachers, and two-thirds of them had religious education as a main qualification. But only about half of those 13,000 teachers were teaching RE. The number of those qualified in RE but not teaching it was very similar to the number teaching RE with no post-A level qualification. That, at least, is a question that we should ponder.
There is some mismatch of that kind between teachers' qualifications and the subjects that they teach for all the main subjects. In 1992, teachers lacking a formal qualification in RE were responsible for a minor but not insignificant share of secondary RE tuition— some 25 per cent. Some of those teachers compensate for their lack of qualifications by in-service training, experience gained from other employment or expertise developed over what may be many years' teaching of the subject. Those credentials may serve very well. It is clear from the Ofsted report, however, that that is by no means universally true.
We believe that the problems with RE staffing must be dealt with on three fronts. First, schools must, as part of their responsibilities for delivering religious
1352
education, identify deficiencies in the skills and expertise of their existing RE teachers. They must address them through in-service training, staff development courses or in-school support. The Ofsted report pointed out the importance of such action and also that practical support must come from the school's RE co-ordinator and head teacher.
The department has made substantial resources available through the grants for education support and training programme to support the national curriculum and religious education. In 1994–95, this includes grant support for £79.3 million of expenditure on books, equipment and training, according to priorities determined by individual schools. Local education authorities may also retain a proportion for training relating specifically to the introduction in schools of new RE syllabuses. GEST also supports £17 million of expenditure on courses to enhance primary teachers' subject knowledge and includes RE for the first time in 1994–95. I hope that, in considering staff development needs, schools will give RE the priority that it deserves to enable teachers to benefit from that support.
The other main actions are for the department and in due course, subject to the passage of the Education Bill, the new Teacher Training Agency. I can give all the assurances that the subject under debate will be taken very seriously. The right reverend Prelate asked how that would be delivered. Perhaps I may say, first, that my right honourable friend has no locus in the matter. The 1988 Act does not specify proportions of time but there is a very strong recommendation that it should be given equal status with other subjects in the curriculum. The Government have no locus for dealing with the detailed content, unlike the national curriculum.
The position in our circular 1/94 is clear. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 35 thereof. It states quite unequivocally that,
"As a whole, and at each key stage, the relative content devoted to Christianity in the syllabus should predominate".
I value this debate for it has provided evidence that the Government's anxiety that RE in schools should be improved is shared in this House and, I know, more widely. I repeat that religious education in schools is taken very seriously by the Government. Education without a moral and spiritual dimension is, as I have said a number of times before, no more than a clinical and arid experience. The key to successful religious education in schools will be the quality of teaching and the quality of learning. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is determined to address these issues.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
8.10 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 35.
[Amendments Nos. 193A and 194 not moved.] Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Variation of licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 194A to 194E not moved.] Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Revocation, suspension and curtailment of licences]:
[Amendment No. 194F not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Review and transfer of operating centres]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 40, line 46, after ("five") insert ("or higher than 10").
The noble Lord said: I hope I may move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I believe it is reasonably self-explanatory. The Bill as it now reads states:
"The periods of review in relation to an operator's licence are—
(a) the period of five years beginning with the date specified in the licence as the date on which it came into force; and".
I am sorry I have read the wrong line, but Clause 39(3) states:
"Regulations may amend subsection (2) of this section by substituting a higher or lower number".
The subsection then specifies a minimum of a number not lower than five. However, there is no reference to an upper limit. My noble friend is seeking to insert an upper limit of 10 years so there is a bracket of five to 10 years. This seems to me to be quite reasonable. If one is setting a lower limit of five years, one does not wish the upper limit to be indeterminate. Therefore the figure of 10 has been suggested by my noble friend. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is quite difficult to discuss this amendment without discussing the amendments we shall reach later on the affirmative procedure. However, when the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee reported, the Government took careful note of its view that the power provided by Clause 39 to change the period of reviews of goods vehicle operating centres was a Henry VIII clause. Of course the committee was concerned that there was no upper limit on the length of the review period. The amendment before us at this moment would place an upper limit of 10 years on the length of that review period. The opportunity to review operating centres is currently provided by the need for operators to apply for a replacement licence at least every five years.
It is reasonable in a system of continuous licensing to provide a similar opportunity at similar intervals of five years. Experience of the present system shows that this strikes the right balance between the interests of operators and those affected by their activities. The Government felt that experience of the new system might at some time show that the period for review could be longer than five years, at least in some circumstances.
I do not believe it would be reasonable to try to estimate what the upper limit might be. The Government would prefer to leave the matter of extensions to experience in the future and the approval of Parliament of the necessary regulations in due course.
When we reach the next two amendments we shall discuss the alternative control system, if I can call it that, which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee suggested, which was to move from the negative to the
1354
affirmative procedure. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, looking ahead in the Marshalled List, will be able to withdraw the amendment that we are now discussing in order to move on to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and that in my name which concern the taking on board of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is difficult to discuss this matter as the amendments we are discussing are in a sense grouped —but they are not. They are not consequential in any way on each other. I think my noble friend will be only too pleased to read in Hansard tomorrow what the Minister has said in relation to the 10-year upper limit. I think it probably would be better if I were to seek leave to withdraw this amendment and then ask my noble friend to move his second amendment which falls in line with the amendment in the name of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 40, line 47, at end insert ("and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me in that the speed with which the Bill is now moving through Committee—I greatly commend that —denied me the opportunity of moving Amendment No. 195. But as my noble friend said, that was essentially a probing amendment but it also formed part of the very great concern expressed in this part of the Chamber from the beginning about the provisions for scrutiny in the Bill.
Part I of the Bill makes certain additional provisions given the nature of the legislation and the use of secondary legislation where we believe that primary legislation would be appropriate. However, elsewhere in the Bill there is a notable failure to make minimum safeguards available. It was for that reason that the scrutiny committee in its ninth report, as this Committee will know, drew attention to a number of changes which it thought your Lordships in Committee would wish to consider. Here I refer to paragraph 8 of the ninth report of the scrutiny committee. That paragraph refers first of all to the matter just discussed by the Committee; namely, the five to 10-year period. The report states:
"As the power is at present to be exercised with no upper limit on the period of time between reviews, the House may wish to consider amending the bill to provide for such a limit, or to provide for the affirmative procedure in this case".
My amendment is designed to provide for the affirmative procedure, but I am led to believe that the amendment in the name of the Minister which is also being debated with Amendment No. 196 seeks to achieve precisely the same purpose, perhaps in a rather better way. Rather than pursue the case for my amendment, I will be happy to give way if the Minister will explain his amendment and convince me—he may well do so—that it provides the safeguards of the kind which otherwise I would be asking for. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to intervene now just to explain the amendment in my name which is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. As I mentioned in the previous short debate with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, this arises from the views expressed by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. We took careful note of the view of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that the power provided in Clause 39 to change the period of the reviews of goods vehicle operating centres was a Henry VIII clause. (That, of course, is a clause in which primary legislation is amended by secondary legislation.) We also took note of the concern of the committee that there was no upper limit on the length of the review period. In our discussions on Amendment No. 195 I explained why we did not consider it appropriate to include an upper limit. However, we are content to accept the recommendation that orders under this power should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I am advised that Amendment No. 196 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, as drafted is not the most appropriate way of giving effect to that intention. The Government have therefore brought forward an equivalent amendment—Amendment No. 196C—to Schedule 12 of the Bill. The noble Lord has already indicated that he will withdraw his amendment. I am sure that the Committee will accept my amendment, Amendment No. 196C.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Given that reassurance I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 42, line 19, at end insert:
("(aa) that any vehicle cease to be specified in the licence;").
The noble Lord said: I am sure that the Committee will agree that a licensing authority should have the power it needs to reduce the scope of an operator's continuous licence when it removes an operating centre or attaches conditions to a licence at the five-year point. This is a small technical amendment which ensures that the licensing authority will have that power. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I welcome what appears to be a conversion on the part of the Minister to some lucidity in relation to the powers of the licensing authority. While I accept the amendment, it seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the attitude that the noble Lord has taken in the past. How is this consistent with the logic of the previous arguments which he has adduced? However, I do not want to cause him to waver at this stage and therefore I strongly support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Fees]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 196B:
Page 45, line 45, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to make it obligatory on the part of the authority not to proceed with an application if the fee is not paid. It is our view that an impecunious applicant should not be able to get a licence. At the moment there is nothing to stop an application proceeding notwithstanding the fact that the fee may not have been paid.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to probe the Government's intentions in this regard. Perhaps a hint of the Government's good will was demonstrated by their volunteering the previous amendment, of which I wholly approve. I hope that the Minister will be equally benign in relation to this simple amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I hope that the spirit of good will does not become too prevalent. Clearly, after dinner we have made a good start. However, in the case of this amendment I hope to be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the discretionary powers are sensible, although he will appreciate that the number of times they will be used will be very small indeed.
As the clause is drafted it gives the licensing authority discretionary powers to decline to proceed with applications for or the issuing of licences or variations until any due fee or instalment has been paid. We believe that it is necessary for the power to be discretionary so that the licensing authority can deal with exceptional circumstances in which an operator has done all he can to ensure payment but where, for example, a cheque is delayed in the mail due to industrial action or something of that nature which is quite legitimate. We believe that the licensing authority ought to have discretion. I suspect that, if there is any hint that the delay is due to the fact that the applicant cannot find the money, the licensing authority might have another look at whether he ought to have a licence.
I believe that there could be exceptional circumstan-ces in which the use of the discretionary power is desirable. I hope that with that explanation of the reason for the discretionary power the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not wholly persuaded by that response. Again, it is one of those issues on which I feel it is necessary to reflect on what the Minister has said with some care. I shall certainly do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Goods Vehicle Operator Licensing: Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 196C:
7, line 13, at end insert:
("(5) After section 91(6) there shall be inserted—
"(6A) No regulations shall be made under section 69EA(3) of this Act unless a draft of them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.".
(6) In section 91(7) after "of this Act" there shall be inserted ", other than regulations under section 69EA(3),".").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Undertakings given on applications]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 47, line 10, at beginning insert:
("(1A) After subsection 14(3) (b) there shall be inserted—
"(c) that there will not be any adverse effects on local environmental conditions as a result of the activities of the licence holder." ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 197. We return here to an environmental issue, but this time in relation to public service vehicles.
I believe that it is right that an application for a public service vehicle operator's licence should be capable of being refused on environmental grounds. The pro-visions in the Transport Act 1968 concerning lorry operating centres provide, as we have reviewed in earlier debates, the ability to object to such an application on environmental grounds. A similar provision does not exist in relation to the operation of public service vehicles. In this amendment we seek to raise the principle that similar environmental safeguards should apply to PSV operating centres.
We have seen bus deregulation emerge under the provisions of the Transport Act 1985. As a result, the number of bus operators has increased substantially. We have also seen a burgeoning of smaller operators. In many cases the storage facilities for such operators' vehicles are inadequate. Environmental problems have resulted. I shall not weary the Committee at this stage with the evidence, but to illustrate what I am saying, there have been instances of buses being kept permanently on the street.
It is difficult to justify a distinction in principle between the inclusion of environmental factors in a goods vehicle operator licensing regime but to exclude it from the passenger service vehicle regime. We are being consistent in the principles that we are advancing.
I must declare an interest as President of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. My understanding is that over a considerable period of time the AMA has made representations to the Government—I believe that other representations will also be made—in order to correct that anomaly, but until tonight without success. However, I am sure that light will dawn tonight. Does the Minister accept that there should not be inconsistency? If he says that there should be a difference between the two regimes, how does he justify that? In the absence of a provision such as that which I commend to the Committee, how does the Minister envisage that the environmental impact of inadequate PSV operating centres should be addressed?
Again, it is a matter which intrudes upon the right of many residents to decent protection of the environment. It is an issue which should have been corrected long ago. If there were inadequacies in the previous regime, as there clearly were, they should have been corrected then However, the fact of the matter is that people
1358
should not be exposed to such risks. I believe that it is an area of activity which should be curbed and the Minister has it within his power so to do.
The Minister states that he cannot continue to be too magnanimous. I suppose that there are limits to any Conservative Minister's magnanimity. However, I should have thought that it was an area in which it would be appropriate for him to make a suitable concession. At the very least, I hope that he will say that it is a matter on which he will ponder further, if he does not accept the amendment. The representations have been made powerfully to the Opposition Benches. The Minister is well aware of the anxieties. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As we move to this new chapter of the Bill, perhaps I may say that the purpose of the Bill is to deregulate and reduce the level of unnecessary control on industry. The amendment introduces new constraints on PSV operators by adding an additional condition to be satisfied before the traffic commissioner grants a licence.
We are sensitive to the need to balance the position of local people with an efficient public transport system which gives local people a pleasant environment in which to reside. In other parts of the general transport debate, encouraging public transport is one of the ways in which we are usually urged to help improve the environment. An important means of public transport is the bus. We therefore have to strike a balance with regard to how we treat PSV operating centres and the licences.
However, I believe that sufficient powers are available to local authorities to ensure that balance. We do not believe it is necessary to introduce a further raft of controls on environmental grounds into the PSV operator licensing system. I do not believe that that would help the environment. It would add needlessly to the hurdles facing those who wish to start a business in the bus industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I cited an example which is given authoritatively of buses being kept in the street. That cannot be good on environmental or safety grounds. How can the local authority deal with that situation at present without the reinforced powers that I advocate?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I intend to come to the point raised by the noble Lord. I had certainly considered that it needed answering. I can quite appreciate that a bus parked in one's street—it would not be constantly parked because no doubt it would go on service runs—could be considered an environmental nuisance. However, before I reach the detail, perhaps I may give some of the background. When the bus services were deregulated in 1986, the Government gave careful consideration as to whether environmental controls should be introduced on PSV operating centres similar to those which had been put in place for goods vehicle operators. We concluded that there were significant differences between the two operations.

1359
There are far fewer PSV operators. There are some 7,200, as opposed to 130,000 HGV operators. So there is quite a difference of scale.
We concluded then that there was no evidence that PSV operating centres caused significant problems of the type that existed for goods vehicles. Most of the PSV operating centres were well established and accepted in their locality. Before a new operating centre can be used, the operator must have planning permission. In the gaining of that planning permission, there is the provision for the planning authority to deal with any potential environmental problems.
On the specific question of buses spoiling a local environment by parking in the street, or, I suspect, going through areas in which they should not travel, or through which they did not travel in the past, a traffic regulations order can be imposed under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit or restrict the use of a road by a particular class of vehicle—in this case buses. Orders can be made for preserving or improving the amenities of areas through which a specific highway runs. Orders may determine which highways may be used by PSVs and can stipulate the places at which PSVs may stop for a longer time than is necessary for taking up and setting down passengers. They may also include parking and waiting restrictions.
In other words, the local authorities already have the powers on the highway to deal with the problem raised by the noble Lord. I do not believe that it is necessary to add the powers to those of the traffic commissioners, although I fully recognise the problem that he raises. I hope and expect that, if the problem occurs in any given area, the local authorities will use the powers at their command to prevent bus parking being an environmen-tal nuisance.
I hope that, with that explanation of how the situation to which the noble Lord referred can be dealt with, he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: That is not happening, is it? The bus legislation passed through the House before the present Minister was in his job. Some of us were ploughing through that legislation night after night. I do not blame him for not being present; it was very wise of him. The Bill was very hard work. However, a number of us expressed grave worries about some of the consequen-ces of that Bill. I remember that the late lamented Lord Underhill—he preceded the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—spoke at length about the dangers of the legislation with regard to small bus operators. We all predicted that there would be a sudden mushrooming of small bus operators using second-hand buses, with little control and little maintenance, and generally creating a nuisance.
I am afraid that that is precisely what has happened. While overall, as a result of that legislation, bus usage has gone down, and many of us who live in rural areas have seen our bus services truncated if not disappearing altogether, one of the major problems has been the cowboys.
There have been cases recently in Somerset, as the noble Lord may have heard, where school buses had to
1360
be taken off the road. Four or five operators had to be dealt with, but only when they were causing severe problems for the local authority. All right, the local authority stepped in, but it should never have got to that state.
If the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will go some way towards prevention rather than cure, then it ought to be taken more seriously by the Government. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will seek much more reassurance from the Government than he has already received.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for injecting into the debate the background against which the issues were considered previously. I was not involved, but my late and much lamented friend and colleague Lord Underhill, whom we all miss, would have tackled the issue with his characteristic assiduity. He had a remarkable penchant for the common sense approach to such issues. Therefore, his forecast of the kind of dangers that have erupted has proved to be absolutely accurate.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is quite right in referring to the circumstances under which some operators carry out their business today. Privatisation and deregulation in that regard have not proved to be an overwhelming success, precisely because there have been too many cowboy operators paying inadequate attention to safety and environmental requirements. Therefore, in the light of the circumstances which have prevailed since that legislation was enacted I think we should benefit from experience. I find that the Minister's conclusions, with respect, are bizarre. He ignores that experience. He asserts that the licensing authorities have sufficient powers already. If they have, it is remarkable that the powers are not being exercised. It may be that they are under different pressures or that they have not found it possible to carry out the duties with the necessary assiduity that is required of them.
However, we must have regard to the legal requirements which should be introduced in the Bill. I simply cannot accept either that the suggestion I have made is otiose or that the Government are going about their business in achieving a true balance. The scales are heavily tipped against environmental considerations. It is too easy for environmental nuisance to take place.
Baroness Hamwee: I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening. Perhaps I should have made the point earlier, but it might add to his arguments. The Minister said that the Bill is about deregulation. Having read the sections on public service vehicle operator licensing, it seems to me that this part of the Bill should be the "regulation and imposing of extra provisions" part of the Bill. Does the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, agree that in proposing a condition about environmental considerations, which should concern all Members of the Committee, his amendment would be entirely within the grain of this part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I thought that was my argument, but I thank her for giving emphasis to it.

1361
The fact is that there is nothing in the provision for the Government to find unacceptable. That is the essence of the matter. If the Government are anxious to ensure that their good faith is not impugned, that they have every interest in maintaining the proper balance to which the Minister constantly alludes, here he has a superb opportunity of establishing his bona fides—not his personal bona fides, but those of the Government. He says that there is a difference of scale as against heavy goods vehicle operators. That should make it easier for enforcement to take place, not the contrary. He says that there is no evidence of similar environmental problems. I urge him to look carefully at the situation because, in my submission, there is ample evidence of environmen-tal problems of a scale that is unacceptable.
I do not believe that these are issues where planning permission is the answer. I know that the Minister is not prepared to give way on this, he said as much in the clearest possible terms. So I think that it is an issue where I should test the opinion of the Committee.
8.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 197) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 51.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hooson, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Attlee, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Barnett, L.

Jeger, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Judd, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mar, C.

Dahrendorf, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Meston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eatwell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pin of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Redesdale, L.

[Teller.]

Richard, L.

Gregson, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollick, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

1362

Valley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

White, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wigoder, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Howe, E.

Annaly, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Arran, E.

Leigh, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brentford, V.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cranborne, V.

Reay, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Denham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Downshire, M.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Goschen, V.

[Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.53 p.m.
[Amendment No. 197ZA not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 47, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In section 17(1) after the words "as to professional competence" there shall be inserted "and the Traffic Commissioners shall also revoke the licence if the holder has shown consistent disregard for drivers' hours regulations."").
The noble Lord said: What we seek to do in this amendment is to put the responsibility for adhering to drivers' hours regulations on the holders of PSV operators' licences. It is an attempt to counter the current blatant disregard for the law so far as this matter is concerned, and indeed to take account of public concern over recent motorway crashes such as that on the M.2 in which nine American tourists were killed and in which driver fatigue was a contributory factor.
Driver fatigue needs to be taken far more seriously than the Government take it at the present time. Disgruntled coach drivers for National Express are threatening to go on strike over hours that put lives at risk. That would be an unprecedented situation for them. Seventy-five drivers in Liverpool who work for a firm that is contracted by National Express decided to walk out after telling their employers that their rota was a danger to passengers. That is not good news.
So far as the European Union rules are concerned, I have already indicated to the Committee on previous occasions and I do not need to repeat it at length now that the present rules are simply not adequate. That is why they are being reconsidered by the European Union. There is nothing to stop the Government taking some action now. There is ample legal reasoning under Article 36 of the treaty which enables the Government to do precisely that. Therefore I commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am delighted that I have an audience again. I congratulate all the Members of the Committee who are having dinner somewhere or other in the Palace of Westminster. I am only glad that we were able to get a few amendments under our belt because the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was a little late back from dinner.
We now turn to another amendment on the powers of the traffic commissioners with regard to the drivers' hours regulations. I do not think that there is anything between the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and myself on the subject of the importance of the restrictions on drivers' hours and on ensuring that they are fully complied with. We are very well aware of the significance of those regulations in maintaining and improving the safety record of our bus industry. It is fair to say that despite the recent number of highly publicised accidents, there is no question that overall bus travel is a very safe means of passenger travel. The statistics are certainly there to prove it. But of course that depends on a variety of matters being complied with by the bus operators. We are discussing here the question of drivers' hours.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that this amendment is not needed to meet the objective of securing compliance. It seeks to give a power to the traffic commissioners which they already possess. If I may explain what that power is, I hope that I shall convince the noble Lord that it is unnecessary to add this particular amendment to the Bill.
Anyone who shows a consistent disregard for drivers' hours regulations will be prosecuted and, if convicted of the offences, will stand to lose his licence. The grounds on which a traffic commissioner may revoke an operator's licence are that the holder no longer satisfies the requirement to be of good repute, the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing or the requirement as to professional competence.
Under Schedule 3 to the 1981 Act, a traffic commissioner shall determine that an individual is not of good repute if he has been convicted of serious offences or has been repeatedly convicted of road transport offences. The schedule, in defining a road transport offence, states that it is,
"an offence under the law in force in any part of the United Kingdom relating to road transport, including in particular drivers' hours and rest periods".
The position is similar with regard to company licence holders.
I hope that that explanation reassures the Committee and the noble Lord that the licensing system already provides sanctions to help ensure compliance with drivers' hours regulations and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not accept that argument at all. The Minister speaks of serious offences. In the view of the traffic commissioners serious offences may not involve a consistent disregard for the drivers' hours regulations. The matter therefore needs to be reinforced. It will do the Bill no harm; indeed, it will do it a considerable amount of good. Therefore I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.197A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 51.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Attlee, E.

Judd, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bottomley, L.

Listowel, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Mar, C.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Craigavon, V.

Meston, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

[Teller.]

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harnwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollick, L.

Varley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Hooson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Henley, L.

Annaly, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Leigh, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brentford, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Colwyn, L.

Marlesford, L.

Courtown, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

Harlech, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hayhoe, L.

1365

Slrathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

[Teller.]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.7 p.m.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 197AA not moved.]
Clause 49 [Objections to applications for licences]:
[Amendment No. 197AB not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Duration of licences]
[Amendment No. 197B not moved.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 197C:
Page 48, line 19, at end insert (" , following a probationary period of 12 months, at the end of which period the traffic commissioner shall review the grant of the licence.

(2A) The matters which the traffic commissioner shall take into account when carrying out such a review shall include:—

(a)whether the PSV operator has caused or permitted any vehicles operated under the licence to park illegally;

(b)whether there have been any complaints as to noise disturbance from the site from which vehicles are operated by the PSV operator; and

(c)the likelihood of environmental damage resulting from the indefinite grant of the PSV operator's licence.").

The noble Lord said: Like others, I come from the deeper recesses to move this amendment, which I shall do very rapidly. I suggest to the Committee that we are not likely to discuss a more important amendment on this part of the Bill than the amendment before us which seeks to safeguard the lives of children by insisting on seat belts. In a recent incident, children from the Hagley Roman Catholic High School were involved in a hideous collision in which 12 of them died. Suffice it to say that the coroner, Mr. Coker, found that because the children were not wearing seat belts they were all thrown to one end of the coach, a fire started and they could not be evacuated. Nothing tells us of the need for this amendment more clearly than that recent incident.
It was astonishing that on virtually the same day as the inquest Mr. Robert Key, the Minister, announced that the Government saw no need for seat belts. This ' amendment is moved to allow the House to say that there is—
Viscount Ullswater: I believe there may be some mistake. The Deputy Chairman called Amendment No. 197B and it was not moved. We are now dealing with Amendment No. 197C.
Lord Howell: It was a mistake. If it is not possible to rectify that mistake, it ought to be possible by the leave of the House. Therefore, I shall continue with my speech.
It was quite astonishing that the Minister decided on the same day as the inquest to announce that there was no need for the Government to take action. We know that the European Community is investigating this issue. We know that there is a cost to installing seat belts and that that is a consideration. But the most important consideration of all—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Ullswater: We seem to be in some difficulty. The noble Lord appears to be addressing himself to an amendment which we have already passed. I feel that it would be difficult to go back at this moment. In fact, the Orders of the House do not allow us to do so, having decided on an amendment. I think that we ought perhaps to address our remarks to Amendment No. 197C, which is the amendment before the Committee.
Lord Howell: If it is not possible to address Amendment No. 197B, which was clearly my intention —I do not wish to inflict any discourtesy on the Committee—I shall seek leave to withdraw now and come back to this vital matter at a later stage in the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may ask for guidance. Is it not possible at this late stage to debate Amendment No. 197B now as a manuscript amend-ment? I ask for the guidance of the Committee. I believe that that is in order.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee to adjourn for a few minutes in order to decide on the proper thing to do. Any manuscript amendment would need a certain amount of consideration by the Government. Perhaps we would not be ready to take it just at this moment. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Noble Lords need to know for how long the House is to be adjourned.
Viscount Ullswater: I was going to suggest a period of 10 minutes in order for the Government to have a look at the manuscript amendment and consider it. It is a late hour for putting in a manuscript amendment. It is right for the Government to look at it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for a period of 10 minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 9.14 to 9.30 p.m.]
House again in Committee on Clause 50.
Lord Howell: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 197C.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved manuscript Amendment No. 197CA:
Page 48, line 19, at end insert (" , following a probationary period of 12 months, at the end of which period the traffic commissioner shall review the grant of the licence.

(2A) The matters which the traffic commissioner shall take into account when carrying out such a review shall include:—

(a)whether the PSV operator has caused or permitted any vehicles operated under the licence to park illegally;

(b)whether there have been any complaints as to noise disturbance from the site from which vehicles are operated by the PSV operator;

(c)the likelihood of environmental damage resulting from the indefinite grant of the PSV operator's licence; and

1367

(d) the extent to which the PSV operator voluntarily complies with best safety practice, particularly with regard to vehicles in which school children are or may be carried.").

The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Government business managers and to the Committee for the difficulties that we have had. I express our appreciation for the way in which they have met us on this vital matter of protecting the lives of schoolchildren in minibuses. As I have used all the arguments previously, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am slightly confused, as I am sure is the whole Committee. There I was, after dinner in a benign good mood, giving way on a major issue of deciding whether changes to Clause 39 should be done by the affirmative or negative resolution procedure. The few Members in the Chamber were in fine good mood. Then all of a sudden the audience swells and voting takes place at a high rate. I may say that that was after seven or eight amendments had fallen by the wayside because the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was not in his place to move them—
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We then proceeded to discuss the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which indicated that it considered Clause 39 and the powers sought in it to be a Henry VIII clause. I was prepared to listen to the argument and to read the argument in the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I brought forward my amendment, which the Committee was delighted to accept. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and I exchanged pleasantries.
After a little while we moved into a situation where, having not moved an amendment, we then tried to move a manuscript amendment; and we are now where we are. I wish to be quite clear that the manuscript amendment to which I am speaking is the one before me because I thought that we were dealing with Amendment No. 197C, having passed by Amendment No. 197B. We seem to be speaking to an amendment to Clause 50 and I shall come to what Clause 50 does later—very, very much later.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that I have noticed a new practice which is not brought from the other place and not even brought from the European Parliament. No doubt it is brought by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Richard, who I believe are the only two former European Commissioners present in the Committee at the moment. It is brought from the European Commission and the Council of Ministers where, when a little trouble breaks loose and there has to be an adjournment, the clock is stopped. That is a very odd procedure but your Lordships will agree that it is a procedure well rehearsed by the European Council. It stops the clock, resolves the problem and after a while —five minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 25 minutes, 30 minutes, 35 minutes, 40 minutes—it then starts the clock again. Miraculously, of course, the clock has moved on again in the meantime. That is puzzling; but that has been done this evening.
1368
I want to be sure that I have amalgamated the two amendments which were tabled properly on the Marshalled List, and that I now understand what I am doing; that is, that I am looking at an amendment to Clause 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It states:
"Page 48, line 19"—
that is, of course, in Clause 50—
"at end insert (", following a probationary period of 12 months, at the end of which period the traffic commissioner shall review the grant of the licence.

(2A) The matters which the traffic commissioner shall take into account when carrying out such a review shall include:—

"(a) whether the PSV operator has caused or permitted any vehicles operated under the licence to park illegally;

(b) whether there have been any complaints as to noise disturbance from the site from which vehicles are operated by the PSV operator; and

(c) the likelihood of environmental damage resulting from the indefinite grant of the PSV operator's licence.".

That is what is on my Marshalled List as Amendment No. 197C.
We now move back to Amendment No. 197B. From Amendment No. 197B, we do not take all of it. We take only paragraph (d) which states:
"(d) the extent to which the PSV operator voluntarily complies with best safety practice, particularly with regard to vehicles in which school children are or may be carried".
As so many Members of the Committee have suddenly taken an interest in the issue it is fair that I should point out to the latecomers to the debate the background which we are discussing and what Chapter IV is about, which puts Clause 50 and the amendments tabled so carefully by the noble Lord into context.
The provisions in this part of the Bill, including Clause 50 and including the amendments that we are discussing, are for public service vehicles and are similar to those which we discussed earlier this evening in relation to goods vehicles. Their purpose is to deregulate the system for the benefit of PSV operators and to tidy up some of the administrative procedures.
The most important deregulatory measure is the move to continuous licensing. Of course, I must say to noble Lords that that is very relevant to the particular amendment which is before us. At present, all but a handful of operators fail to satisfy the traffic commissioners that they should have their licences renewed for five years so there is clearly no need for all operators to have to go through the formal procedure for licence renewal.
Operators and their activities will, however, be subject to checks at any time. That is extremely important when we look at the three amendments before us this evening. There will be no change in the system of enforcement by the Vehicles Inspectorate. Of course, it is that inspectorate which will stop and check those vehicles to ensure that they are up to standard in every possible way. It will continue to ensure compliance with PSV operator licensing and also a high standard of vehicle maintenance. I know that all noble Lords, and especially the Government, are most keen that there should be a high standard of vehicle maintenance.
The traffic commissioners will be able to impose conditions or revoke licences if standards are found to be wanting. Therefore, under the new provisions in the Bill operators will gain from the measures that we are

1369
discussing this evening, including those in Clause 50. Operator licences will run indefinitely. That is a most important aspect when we are considering the current amendment which proposes to introduce a probationary period.
The Government's proposals in the Bill—as, indeed, was the case with heavy goods licences which we discussed earlier and in some detail—are that operator licences will run indefinitely. That will remove from PSV operators, as it does in Chapter III of the Bill as regards heavy goods operators, the unnecessary and costly administrative burden of having to apply for fresh licences every five years whether or not there has been any material change in their circumstances.
Operators will be able to take up fewer than the maximum number of discs which are authorised on their licence, so enabling them to reduce costs and react more readily to fluctuations in the market. There will be greater flexibility in cases where an operator's licence is suspended or an operator is disqualified from holding a licence, as traffic commissioners will have a new power. I should have thought that that would have been of vital interest to noble Lords opposite who are interested in the powers of the traffic commissioners in certain circumstances. As I said, the commissioners will have new powers to cancel or vary their decisions on such matters.
I shall tell the Committee about the undertakings which an operator may give. I am sure that at least my noble friends will be interested to know exactly what they are; as, indeed, will noble Lords opposite. Undertakings that an operator has given in his application for a licence will be recorded. The operator may apply to have them varied or removed if his circumstances change. Coupled with the new flexibility of continuous operator licensing, there will be more flexible arrangements for paying fees. Regulations will provide that payment may be made in annual instalments instead of a five-year lump sum. That is appropriate when moving from five-yearly periods to a continuous licensing system. Of course, there will be appropriate sanctions for non-payment of fee instalments. That is what we are doing.
I mentioned a few moments ago—in fact, it may have been five minutes ago as time passes so quickly—that those Members of the Committee who are interested in PSV operator licences may like to know exactly what is in the licence and what undertakings the applicant has to give. All applicants for public service vehicle operator licences must sign a statement of intent or undertaking at the time of making their application in the following manner:
"I will make proper arrangements so that the laws relating to the driving and operation of the vehicles used under this licence are observed; the rules on drivers' hours are observed and proper records kept; vehicles do not carry more than the permitted number of passengers; vehicles are kept in a fit and serviceable condition; drivers report mechanical faults in vehicles as soon as possible; and, records are kept for 15 months of all safety inspections, routine maintenance and repairs to vehicles and these are made available on request".
The applicant further states:
1370
"I will maintain adequate financial resources for the administration of the business and I will tell the traffic commissioners of any changes or convictions which affect the licence".
Members of the Committee opposite wish to add the words of the amendment to Clause 50. I am not entirely sure whether my noble friends would like me to remind them of the amendment because I am in the lucky position of having it in front of me. Just in case one or two of them would like me to do that, I suggest that they look at page 48, line 19 of the Bill at Clause 50. They will see that this amendment to Clause 50 proposes that we should insert:
"Following a probationary period of 12 months at the end of which period the traffic commissioners shall review the grant of the licence".
I am not entirely sure how this probationary period is meant to work. How will it be operated? Do the traffic commissioners have to be sure of and check up on the good repute, professional competence and financial standing of the applicant all over again ? I believe that that is something we must consider because that would mean that at the end of the probationary period the traffic commissioners would have to treat the applicant as if he were a new applicant. They would have to go right back to the beginning.
Do the traffic commissioners have to be satisfied that these requirements are not met? Do they have to be sure that the applicant, somehow or other, no longer has good repute, or professional competence, or adequate financial standing? Does the review have to be advertised? Earlier we discussed the need for advertising. My following point is not mentioned in the amendment. Therefore it is clearly not entirely an effective amendment: indeed, it is probably a defective amendment. I would not be surprised, given the speed with which it was written. At the end of the probationary period will we have to go back to the beginning and insist that reviews are advertised in the local papers? Perhaps the local papers will be delighted to know that all that will have to be done and that applicants will have to re-advertise after a 12-month period in the local papers. This part of the clause might be considered to be to the benefit of local papers. I am not sure whether that will happen. But some Members of the Committee did not win an amendment earlier which I resisted. I am more than pleased that I resisted it. I may be prepared to develop the theme of why I resisted it.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: I interrupt the noble Lord because this is all very enjoyable but your Lordships' House has certain traditions and certain correct ways of behaving. There is a limit beyond which the patience of all Members of the Committee can be exhausted. I understand what the noble Lord is up to. I understand that he and his noble friends are cross because they do not like to be beaten two-nil, and they hate to be beaten three-nil, but the fact remains that there are limits to one's patience. I hope that the noble Lord will at least have the courtesy to remain within our normal traditions and not simply repeat everything that he has said and break the rules. I have no objection to him discussing the substantive amendment and I will listen to him, as I

1371
have been listening to him, but I feel that, more important than the behaviour of the Government and the fact that they have just been beaten two-nil, is the fact that they should pay some attention to the traditions of your Lordships' House and to decent behaviour within your Lordships' House.
Lord Lyell: Before my noble friend gets up to speak, may I ask him to ask the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench to look at a little red book on which we all take the oath? It is called the Bible. If he will look at the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 8, verse 7, he may find an interesting reference. He can cut out the bit about the woman taken in adultery. However, he may read the sentence: "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone". Before the noble Lord or anyone else lectures your Lordships' House on behaviour, he should refer back to the proceedings just before the adjournment. It is certainly a case of pots calling kettles black or whatever may be traditional in your Lordships' House. We are discussing the manuscript amendment and engaged in a ritual dance only because an error was made. Your Lordships do have humour. I regret that humour is not apparent on the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord Peston: That is interesting but it is not the issue. I did not realise that defeating the Government had now become a sin. If it were, as one of the more moral Peers, I should not engage in such things. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to defeat the Government. It is perfectly reasonable for those of us who engage in such activities to behave like decent people. I am not happy if the Committee is simply abandoning any attempt to discuss the Bill seriously in order to waste time.
I always find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, interesting. I have no objection to him developing his argument. I do object to a blatant attempt to waste time in order not to accept another defeat. I do not believe that that is a fair game which any of us would want to play in any circumstances.
Lord Harlech: Perhaps I may intervene. It has been very interesting to hear what the Committee has discussed. A great deal of interest has been expressed by many people who know a great deal about the subject. We are now being diverted into a question of whether there is time wasting in the Committee.
I should like to make this point in relation to the Bill that we are discussing in this Committee stage. My noble friend the Minister has explained very clearly that the procedures for HGV and PSV licensing are already in place. All the safeguards are in place. If a lady kills herself and 12 children by driving at 28 miles an hour into a vehicle which is engaged in white-lining the road, the children, had they had seat belts, would simply have died more quickly. It is not appropriate to make statute after the event.
If one wants to devise proper safeguards for the carriage of people that is an important issue. But it is not an appropriate issue to discuss in relation to the way this Chamber conducts its business.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): I came into the Committee towards the tail end of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. He said that it was not a normal procedure for my noble friend Lord Mackay to speak as he did in discussing the amendment.
In my view, the issue is a simple one. We are dealing with an amendment which was not on the Marshalled List but is a manuscript amendment. Given that the situation has changed, it must be right that my noble friend should at the very least deal with that amendment, moved at very short notice, in an extremely full manner.
Secondly, I have dealt with many Bills in this Chamber. Only once before have I been faced with a manuscript amendment. I have never been faced with a manuscript amendment at such short notice. Given that fact, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for my noble friend to explain the position.
Perhaps I may make this final point. With so many new Members of the Committee who have not hitherto been assiduous attenders in respect of this area of the Bill, the Government's position should be fully explained.
Lord Monkswell: I moved a manuscript amendment the other day. At the time I apologised that it was laid at short notice. That manuscript amendment was dealt with within seven minutes. We have spent 17 minutes on this manuscript amendment. I suggest to the Committee that it is time that we tested the opinion of the Committee on the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are indulging in an unusual procedure in that we stopped the clock for a little while and I am now confronted with a manuscript amendment simply because the Front Bench opposite slipped up and said "Not moved" to an amendment that it wanted to move. That was a mistake. But they then seek to redeem the matter in this way and to complain that I am trying to take some time over an amendment which they must consider to be important. After all, they have overturned the normal way in which we go about our business. They have submitted a manuscript amendment. They have brought Peers here late this evening—not quite late enough at five minutes to ten —and now I have complaints that I am not dealing in detail with the amendment. It is suggested that I am annoyed because we have been defeated. I am slightly amused at the tactics used to defeat us. That is fine. In another place all these matters were fair game. But I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that you have the wrong sow by the lug in this particular case. In another place I was rather good at explaining in some detail to Members who came late to the proceedings exactly the purpose of the amendment before them.
If and when Members of the Committee come to vote —that is on the assumption that they are not persuaded by my argument against the amendment—they will at least have heard the argument in some detail.
Lord Stewartby: This is an important matter. It seems to me that there is a question of substance. There is also a question of procedure. From what my noble friend says, the procedure is irregular. It would be for

1373
the benefit of those of us who had wind of the fact that an irregular procedure was taking place, and who have now come into the Chamber, to have a succinct description by my noble friend of the reasons why he believes that it is an unusual and unsuitable way to proceed. We can then separately consider the subject matter of the amendment that is proposed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend was perhaps present earlier today when on two separate occasions, at the beginning of business and as we adjourned for the dinner interval, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out that a significant number of amendments had been put down on the Marshalled List in the past 24 or 48 hours in addition to the amendments which had already been dealt with in Committee on Monday. Quite rightly he made the point that noble Lords opposite had felt it necessary to put down a significant number of amendments over the past 48 hours.
I find it a little odd that at this late stage, with all the amendments before us, they have to table a manuscript amendment; and then they complain because I seek to deal with the amendment. The amendment concerns a probationary period of 12 months. I dealt with that matter in relation to heavy goods vehicles. I shall have to check the record but I believe that I convinced noble Lords opposite that their amendment was unnecessary. However, we are back on the subject of a probationary period of 12 months.
The amendment seeks to introduce a probationary period of 12 months. Perhaps I may say a few words on that. As I said a moment ago, we discussed the subject when debating Chapter III which, as noble Lords well recognise, is the chapter which refers to heavy goods vehicles. I shall not trespass on the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, by going into some detail about what heavy goods vehicles are because the noble Lord was present when we debated the chapter.
However, similar arguments apply for public service vehicle operators to those that I put forward in the case of HGVs. Of course we agree that there is a need to monitor carefully the performance of new operators. The existing powers of the traffic commissioners, together with the provisions of the Bill, will ensure that such monitoring can be carried out effectively without the need for a probationary period. Were a probationary period to be introduced it would create a year of uncertainty for operators who are just setting up in new business.
Under the present system, special attention is paid by traffic commissioners to applicants who are new to the business. Most are seen at a public inquiry when the grant of the licence is considered and in some traffic areas they are invited to attend a new operators' seminar if their application is successful. All new operators have their premises inspected within the first year of operation, to check on maintenance facilities.
It is already open to traffic commissioners to take disciplinary action against an operator at any time on the grounds that he has failed to meet the licensing requirements. Under the current system, an operator who falls below the required standard may have his
1374
licence suspended, restricted in scope or even revoked. This will remain the case in the new continuous licensing system.
I contend now, as I contended earlier, that in fact the 12-month probationary period is unnecessary. But Members of the Committee opposite have—
Lord Stewartby: Before my noble friend continues on the point, he has not properly explained for the benefit of the Committee why in this case the point was brought forward in a manuscript amendment. It seems to me that this is a most exceptional procedure. One of the problems which it raises is that the Minister himself and his department do not have the proper time in which to consider it fully and therefore to be able to present a full rational response in a debate at this stage.
Can my noble friend say whether he has been able to establish from the Opposition Benches why the matter is now being raised in the form of a manuscript amendment and why it has the exceptional characteris-tics which allow it to be brought forward in that form?
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can tell my noble friend that the reason we are looking at a manuscript amendment is simple. Members of the Committee opposite wanted to discuss Amendment No. 197B. It is clear that that is what they wanted to do. Unfortunately, somehow they got their crib sheets mixed up and when the Deputy Chairman read out "Amendment No. 197B", they said, "Not moved". We then went on to Amendment No. 197C. The problem was that that was not the amendment that they wished to discuss. An adjournment was called. I have explained about the question of stopping the clock. An adjournment took place and consideration was given to the matter. The manuscript amendment, which is an amalgam of Amendments Nos. 197C and 197B, has now come before the Committee. Of course I do not wish to be accused of unnecessary delay—
Lord Peston: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene for a moment. I entirely accept what the noble Lord said—one did bungle the thing and he has no need to doubt that. I shall not ask why. The fact is that, as I understood it, the Government then accepted that we would proceed in this way. Is the Minister now saying that we should not do so? Bearing in mind that my reading of the manuscript amendment corresponds precisely with what the noble Lord read out at great length from his brief, the manuscript amendment corresponds exactly to what the noble Lord was prepared for. The notion that he was suddenly taken by surprise in this I find far-fetched.
What I am concerned about is the waste of time. If the Government propose that we abandon all this, I can live with that. If that is what the Government want to do and to say, "Let's pack it all in because you have got it wrong", we can survive that. But what I will not tolerate is this constant harping on it as though we had behaved badly in any way, because I do not believe that we have behaved badly. We have played according to the rules. We happen to be winning for the moment and the Government cannot bear to find that they will not get

1375
into the next round and not qualify for the semi-finals. It is a great difficulty for the Government, but they have to recognise what has happened.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peston, ought to discuss with his noble friend Lord Howell the whole question of playing to the rules. Indeed, they have played to the rules and they did very well in the first half. The second half is not going quite so well, so they are beginning to shout "Foul!" Perhaps I may warn the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has already shown me the yellow card twice. He has promised me a red one next; but he might be getting the red one before I do.
However, to come to the details, as I explained earlier, I do not believe that the probationary period is a good idea. I have already explained and discussed that. I can assure Members of the Committee that the traffic commissioners are already obliged to take into consideration any offences relating to road transport when determining whether an operator is of good repute. Such offences would include the illegal parking mentioned in paragraph (a) of the amendment. As regards noise and disturbance which are mentioned in paragraph (b), local authorities have the power to deal with environmental matters, including noise nuisance, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
My problem with paragraph (d) is that it is very unclear what is meant by,
"the extent to which the PSV operator voluntarily complies with best safety practice".
"Best safety practice" would be very difficult and interesting to define. The Committee will have noticed that noble Lords opposite thought so little of the importance of this amendment that they moved it in a minute and a half without explaining it. I suggest that that is not an adequate way to deal with a matter as important as this.
I have explained and I hope clearly argued the case that the traffic commissioners already have sufficient powers to act on these matters. Probationary periods are
1376
not needed. I therefore hope that noble Lords opposite will withdraw this amendment. If they do not withdraw it, I invite my noble friends to vote it down.
Lord Howell: In view of what the Minister has just said, and recognising the fact that he has not in any way dealt with the purpose of paragraph (d), which unfortunately arose from the loss of 12 lives in a school bus accident and the great anguish that was caused to the parents. The manner in which the debate has now proceeded—I do not particularly blame the Government; I have already apologised once from this side —is most regrettable. But we are concerned about the safety of young children. I think the best course now is to accept the Minister's advice to withdraw the amendment at this stage and return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the manuscript amendment.
Manuscript amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Suspension of licences]:
[Amendment No. 197D not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clauses 52 to 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Disqualification of PSV operators]:
[Amendment No. 197E not moved.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past ten o'clock.