HL Deb 01 November 1999 vol 606 cc618-29

(" .—(1) Section 3 of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993 (transfer of functions relating to the Docklands Light Railway) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (7) below.

(2) In subsection (1) (which confers a power on the Secretary of State to make orders transferring functions relating to the Docklands Light Railway) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "Mayor of London".

(3) Subsection (3) (which confers a power to specify in a transfer order circumstances in which the order shall cease to have effect) shall cease to have effect.

(4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

"(3A) The power to make a transfer order under subsection (1) above includes a power to revoke, amend or re-enact any transfer order made under that subsection.

(3B) Without prejudice to subsection (3A) above, a transfer order may specify circumstances in which the order shall cease to have effect before the expiry of any period specified in any such order."

(5) In subsection (4) (which confers a power to include in a transfer order supplementary etc provision) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "Mayor of London."

(6) Subsection (6) (which provides that the power to make a transfer order is to be exercisable by statutory instrument) shall cease to have effect.

(7) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted— (7) The Mayor of London shall secure that any transfer order made under subsection (1) above (and any order revoking, amending or re-enacting any such order) is printed and published.

(8) A fee may be charged for the sale of an order printed and published under subsection (7) above."

(8) Any transfer order—

  1. (a) made by the Secretary of State under section 3(1) of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993, and
  2. (b) in force immediately before the coming into force of subsection (3) above,
shall have effect as from the coming into force of that subsection as if it were a transfer order made by the Mayor of London.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 50 and speak to Amendments Nos. 51, 125, 127, 160 and 182. On Report my noble friend Lord Macdonald indicated that we would need to bring forward some technical amendments in relation to the Docklands Light Railway and the Croydon Tramlink. These amendments are designed to ensure that certain powers of the Secretary of State and responsibilities of London Regional Transport (LRT) pass to the mayor and to Transport for London. They do not significantly affect the current arrangements for construction and operation of the Docklands Light Railway and Tramlink.

Amendment No. 50 passes to the mayor the power of the Secretary of State to transfer functions of Docklands Light Railway Limited to another person for the purposes of the construction and maintenance of the DLR Lewisham extension.

Amendments Nos. 51 and 125 provide for the mayor and TfL to inherit certain functions of the Secretary of State and the responsibilities of London Regional Transport in respect of Croydon Tramlink. They amend the Croydon Tramlink Act 1994 so that the mayor assumes the role of the Secretary of State in transferring functions to the Tramlink concessionaire. They also give the mayor the role of the Secretary of State in determining any differences arising from proposals to alter the level of a street in relation to the tram, and they place a duty on the London Transport Users' Committee to consider representations in respect of Tramlink.

The amendments also provide for the continuation of the terms of agreements entered into by LRT dealing with the performance of LRT's statutory duties, notwithstanding that certain statutory duties of London Regional Transport are to be re-enacted and held by the mayor and Transport for London. The Tramlink agreement is such an agreement.

Amendments Nos. 127 and 160 make provision for the continuation of penalty fare arrangements which fall outside those for bus and Tube, such as Tramlink, with the mayor assuming the role of Secretary of State, in respect of the making of orders modifying the penalty fare procedures. Amendment No. 182 makes the necessary repeals. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.30 p.m.

Clause 237 [Travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 52: Page 143, line 44, at end insert ("or, if the Secretary of State by order so directs. who have attained 60 years of age").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 52 returns to the issue of concessionary fares and in particular the equality of age between men and women for concessionary fares. My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood moved an amendment at the last stage, giving an opportunity to the Government to put right one matter of inequality between the sexes in what she reminded noble Lords was to be "a unique and modern authority", to quote the Government. The Minister did not take the opportunity at that point to put a modern or indeed a post-modern stamp on the authority. He said that the link between eligibility for travel concessions and the state pension age is long-standing and clearly understood and that any changes should follow the 1995 Pensions Act and any alterations that it may introduce.

The amendment, which will allow for regulation by the Secretary of State, rather than attempting to change the provision at this point, differs from the one moved at the last stage for two reasons. The first is a reason of principle. The Government at the last stage accepted our amendment which stated that the new authority should promote equality. We have returned to that matter this afternoon. That amendment will be in the Bill and it will be adjusted when it goes back to another place. We welcome that situation and would like to see promotion of equality in this area as well as in others.

The second reason is more technical. I understand that the Minister has received correspondence from solicitors instructed by the organisation Parity, which campaigns for equal state pension ages and equal rights for men and women. The correspondence mentions a possible problem in this area in relation to the decision of the European Court of Justice in Atkins, but distinguishes that case, and alerts the Minister to having been instructed to commence proceedings on behalf of a 62 year-old man to establish his right to travel concessions under the London Regional Transport Act 1984. The case of Atkins was brought under the Transport Act 1985. It raises the question of whether the legislation that we are now considering will breach the European Union equal treatment directive.

I do not at this stage ask noble Lords to look at the detail of that directive; nor do I wish to enter into a long debate about the criteria to be applied in this situation. However, having been alerted that there may be a problem, we should allow for alteration through the mechanism of regulation by an order made by the Secretary of State in order to correct the difficulty and to ensure that the legislation is capable of meeting the relevant criteria. This is not something that I would normally recommend.

The amendment would allow for reflection at a later stage, after the passage of the Bill. We hope that there will be action, but the amendment would allow the right steps to be taken by the Government to meet the point. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, the prospect of redrafting this piece of legislation so that it is capable of taking into account any possible variations of any possible legislation rather threw me, and I was a little daunted by that prospect. I can confirm that we have received representations from Parity and we are considering points raised in that letter. I am not in a position to go further than that at this stage.

The amendment would give the Secretary of State a power by order to make all London residents eligible for travel concessions at the age of 60. The London concessionary fare scheme, like schemes in the rest of the country, provides concessionary travel on public transport to men and women of pensionable age: men at 65 and over, women at 60 and over. Perhaps at this stage I should declare a rather unwelcome, looming interest for myself in June next year.

One of the reasons for settling on the state pension age for eligibility was that the link was clearly understood. A person's eligibility for a state pension means that he or she is also eligible for travel concessions. It could be argued that the state pension age represents, very broadly, recognition by the state of the lack of earning power and thus the financial disadvantage of older people. In the Government's view, it is reasonable that the age of eligibility for travel concessions should be in line with society's broader view of the age at which financial assistance should be given.

The issue of an equal age of eligibility for travel concessions has already been addressed in the Pensions Act 1995. This Act provides for women's eligibility for travel concessions to be raised from 60 to 65 (in line with their eligibility for the state pension) over a long transitional period from 2010 to 2020. This maintains the link between concessionary travel and the state pension age and will, in time, eliminate any discrimination against men. The Government have no plans to accelerate this transition, given all the other calls on public funds.

Were the amendment to be implemented, there would be unwelcome anomalies. Setting an equal age of 60 would allow men still in full-time employment to take advantage of travel concessions. The anomaly would be compounded when the state pension age is equalised at 65. At that time, both men and women would be able to enjoy concessionary travel while they were still working.

There is also the issue of the local authority bearing the cost. In London, the boroughs currently choose to provide a free fare concession on London Transport and London rail services for their eligible residents. The current cost of the scheme to the boroughs is £142 million. We estimate that were the noble Baroness's intentions to be implemented, it could cost the boroughs at least an extra £20 million per annum. If that were extended across the whole country, it could cost local authorities in the region of £65 million.

After there has been more time to consider the correspondence to which the noble Baroness referred, I shall continue to keep her fully informed. In the mean time, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, this is a technical matter and I shall rot pursue it at this stage. I have often seen on the faces of government Ministers a look of extreme cynicism when members of opposition parties suggest that they are trying to be helpful to the Government. I understand that cynicism, but this was a genuine attempt to be helpful. I am not in the habit of suggesting that any Secretary of State should obtain additional powers which are not clear on the face of primary legislation.

It may be that this is one of the subjects that has to be dealt with in a "Greater London Authority (Amendment) Bill", which may come down the track at some point. The amendment was a genuine attempt to leave the door open to make a change which may be required. I have not been suggesting to the House that it should tonight make such a major alteration in policy. I heard what the Minister said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 53: Page 144, line 25, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 239 [Requirements as to scope]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 54: Page 145, line 33, at end insert ("or under a transport subsidiary's agreement").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 244 [The London Transport Users' Committee]:

[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Clause 245 [Representations to the Committee]:

[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 57: Page 148, line 35, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]

Clause 253 [Provision of facilities to benefit users of waterways"]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 59: Page 152, line 3, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) below,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 145 and 146.

This group of amendments seeks to address concerns expressed by the Port of London Authority and British Waterways over Transport for London's powers in respect of landing places in Clause 253 and Schedule 11. However, in the light of representations and for the avoidance of doubt we brought forward Amendments Nos. 59 and 61. These make it clear that TfL must obtain a licence or consent in respect of any works if that is required by any enactment. Where there is no such requirement, TfL must obtain the consent of the person who is under a duty to maintain the waterway.

At Report stage on 19th October, in relation to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, I said that I would look at the issue of potential conflict between Transport for London by-laws and those of the navigation authority. As I explained then, I envisaged that any conflict would be resolved at the time of confirmation. I should like to amplify that by reassuring noble Lords that in considering the confirmation of any by-laws under paragraph 27 of Schedule 11, the department will take full account of the concerns of the relevant navigation authority. This will include British Waterways as well as the Port of London Authority.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt we brought forward some specific amendments to Schedule 11 with regard to the Port of London Authority. This is because such a situation is most likely to arise with respect to landing places on the tidal Thames. Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 ensure that TfL cannot make by-laws for landing places where the PLA has power to make by-laws and would ensure that no TfL by-law shall conflict with by-laws made by the PLA under the Port of London Act 1968. These are clarifying amendments tabled for the avoidance of doubt. I beg to move.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 60 and 62 come within this grouping and it is therefore appropriate that I speak to them now. The amendments relate to the concerns of tourist services on the River Thames.

It probably has not escaped notice when looking out of the Library window over the past few years that things have been changing on the river—and I am not referring to that giant bicycle wheel down the road. Some years back the tourist services on the Thames were provided by a motley collection of craft, some of which dated back to the First World War and others which had come from various estuaries around the south coast. They offered services which were at best sporadic and generally of poor quality.

More recently, one cannot fail to have noticed that much larger and more sophisticated craft are being used to take tourist passengers up and down the Thames. Moreover, those craft operate all year round whereas the earlier ones were generally laid up during the winter. The Thames currently draws over 2 million sightseeing passengers and restaurant cruise passengers a year—a figure which will no doubt rise in view of the millennium celebrations. In addition, around 500 people are directly employed in the river services—also a figure which is likely to rise.

I tabled these amendments in response to the government amendments which inserted Clauses 253 and 255 into the Bill at Report stage. Their purpose is to clarify the uncertainty created by those clauses regarding access for tourist boat services to piers and jetties on the River Thames. This is a subject that was broached at an earlier stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood.

Clauses 253 and 255 authorise Transport for London to provide facilities such as piers and jetties on the Thames, and to transfer to London Regional Transport (and ultimately to Transport for London) existing contracts for access to existing piers and jetties on the Thames made between boat operators and the Port of London Authority, or River Services Limited which is a London Regional Transport subsidiary. That transfer will occur without the consent of the boat operators by operation of the law.

Transport for London will be the new transport executive for London and as such its primary focus is likely to be the development and maintenance of passenger transport services, particularly those for commuters. Although the development of such services on the Thames will be welcomed, that should not be at the expense of the London tourist industry. Yet there is a danger that Transport for London, unless directed to do so, will not understand or adequately cater for the special needs of this important part of London's economy. It should be noted, for example, that London Regional Transport, to which Transport for London will be the successor body, is currently responsible for passenger bus services in London but is not responsible for tourist bus services—the open-topped buses which take tourists on circular routes around London.

At this stage I should say that history relates that past attempts to establish water bus services on the Thames failed, despite considerable subsidy. Nevertheless, they had a considerable impact on those providing leisure tourist services on the river, who lost around 20 per cent of their revenue as a result.

The amendments seek to address my concerns, first, by imposing an obligation on Transport for London when providing facilities on the Thames to take account of the needs of tourists and to ensure that tourist boat operators have adequate access to such facilities; secondly, by requiring London Regional Transport and Transport for London to interpret and apply transferred agreements consistently with a policy document previously issued and adhered to by the existing owners of transferred piers and jetties—notably, the Port of London Authority's document Partners in Progress. I seek a level playing field for those who operate tourist services on the river.

Lord Luke

My Lords, I support the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in respect of Amendments Nos. 60 and 62, to which I added my name. These amendments would improve Clauses 253 and 255 which were inserted in the Bill by the Government at Report stage.

As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, explained, the Government's new clauses created an uncertainty regarding access for tourist boat services to piers and jetties on the River Thames. Over the past week I and other noble Lords were contacted by those who are involved in the tourism and leisure industry. They expressed concern about the future of that industry on the Thames and its management by London River Services.

These amendments seek to address that concern: first, by imposing an obligation on TfL when providing facilities on the Thames to take account of the needs of tourists and to ensure that tourist boat operators have adequate access to such facilities; and secondly, by requiring LRT and TfL to interpret and apply transferred agreements consistently with policy documents previously issued, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and adhered to by the existing owners of transferred piers and jetties, notably the PLA document Partners in Progress.

The operator, Catamaran Cruisers Ltd, has pointed out that there are two key points on which it is important to seek assurances from the Minister. The needs of tourism and leisure service operators must be given equal weight to transport matters by LRS, perhaps through the appointment of a director within LRS with experience of, and responsibility for, tourism. Further, there must be an independent assessment of the current impact of the introduction of transport services on the existing tourism and leisure industries, so that both perspectives can be understood and viewed in a more balanced way. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances to the House on these matters.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I rise to express my support for the observations made by the two noble Lords who have already spoken in this debate. Although I am doubtful as to whether the over-used term "a level playing field" is the right one in the circumstances, I understand the point that they are trying to make. In fact, as the Bill stands, I believe that a degree of prejudice is imported into the vital industry of tourism—indeed, it is vital for London, vital for attracting foreign revenue to London and vital for ensuring that London retains its significant position on the world stage as a city of great tourist interest.

I find it extraordinary that there is no reference to tourism in the proposed guidelines. I ask my noble friend specifically: why has that omission occurred? There is a real need for a balance between transport and tourism. I am not convinced that this balanced approach is being applied at present, or, indeed, that it is even being indicated. It is very important, as justified by the history of the situation, that the tourist industry should be given some substantial benefits as a result of the work that it does in providing such services. To obtain significant investment in leisure and tourism, Thames operators were granted sole access to specific routes on the river for fixed periods under contractual licences granted by the PLA.

It seems to me that the approach of LRS at the present time is in breach of those agreements. Again, I ask my noble friend the Minister specifically how that situation can be tolerated. I understand that LRS seeks to justify its position because of statutory obligations, which have been placed upon it by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to implement transport on the Thames. One must pay regard to what is fair in the circumstances. Clearly, the development of these services and of tourism on the Thames is of great importance. I believe that this has been recognised by those who provide such services. But how can anyone justify a breach of sole operating licences when one thinks of the investment which has taken place in order to provide those services?

I believe this to be an issue which ought to be looked at most carefully. I do not propose to enter into the Division Lobby on the issue, and I say so very specifically at this stage because this is a matter which can be worked out. I should like my noble friend to tell the House tonight that the Government are looking very carefully at the issue and that they have no intention of participating in any scheme which would seriously disadvantage those engaged in the tourist industry. There will be time to reconsider the matter while the scheme is being developed. It is not perhaps necessary to put it in the Bill. Although the two noble Lords who have already spoken did not say so specifically. my interpretation of their remarks is that they would like an assurance that this is a matter which will not be passed over.

I am particularly worried that tourist services could be put in an even more disadvantaged position in the future by subsidy and by unfair competition being practised by other transport vis-à-vis those services. Therefore, the licences which were granted by the PLA to boat operators in 1993 should be honoured. It is not as though one can just write off this investment; indeed, it is something of considerable importance. The future of such operators will be in jeopardy if this investment is simply to be written off by those who will be undertaking the management of the scheme.

I do not propose to say anything more, save to end on this note. I believe that it is extremely important to recognise that tourism is of critical importance to this city—one only has to observe to recognise what is happening on the river, especially in the summer months or in the spring—and that it will go on being so after the passage of this Bill. I do not think that a deterrent or a discouragement should arise by virtue of current steps being taken which could be averted.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, I am mindful of the time but, as someone who raised these matters on Report, I should like to add a few words to the debate. Broadly, as other noble Lords have said, the problem is that operators of tourism boats are worried that LRS will disregard existing legally-binding agreements with the PLA and seek to impose unilaterally new conditions, which would seriously prejudice the operators' ability to continue to operate in a financially viable manner. That is the overall problem.

Following my interventions and those of other noble Lords on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was kind enough to write to me. After a consultation with one of his officials, I passed his letter on to one of the parties who had been lobbying Members of this House. That party has now written to me and I shall get back to the noble Lord via the correct procedure in that respect. However, as regards the present position in our proceedings on the Bill, I should like to point out that those concerned would like to see LRS working within the partnership spirit of previous agreements, rather than with the new arrangement. As noble Lords have already said, they are looking for reassurance that the agreements which already cover tourist boats will not be disrupted in a way which will be disadvantageous to the tourist industry.

If I may say so, it is very difficult on the river to make a clear distinction between transport and tourism; for example, I have in mind those boats which. I hope, will go to serve the Millennium Dome. Will they make a significant contribution to the transport of people to the dome? I think not. I believe that they will be largely tourist in their objective—and a very pleasant trip I expect it to be. I very much hope that I and my family will take part in that. But we shall do so not as a means of getting to the Millennium Dome, as I think the Tube will provide a better means of doing that, but because it will be a delightful trip which will enable us to see much of London en route.

I believe that transport in the sense of rush hour transport is unlikely ever to comprise a major part of London's river transport. I think that tourism will continue to comprise the major part of that. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure those who are responsible for that tourist traffic.

7 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, as no one has opposed my amendments I welcome the implicit endorsement of them by the House and will comment on Amendments Nos. 60 and 62! I wish to make it absolutely clear to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and to others that the Government recognise the importance of tourism in London and tourism on the Thames in particular. We value highly the investment that has been made by operators in improving the quality of facilities and services that are available on the Thames. We want to see improvements sustained.

My noble friend asked why tourism had not been included in this provision. I assume that he asks why it has not been included in the guidelines issued by London River Services. As I understand it, tourism is mentioned in that context. I shall check that reference. Certainly the spirit of the whole approach is that tourism and functional transport are covered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, insofar as there is a distinction between tourism and transport services, the delineation is not at all clear cut. We do not see the objectives of tourism and of transport as being exclusive. Nor do we see the role of London River Services as being to promote transport, for example, at the expense of tourism. Indeed I am absolutely confident that London River Services shares that view.

However, as significant anxieties have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and others, I want to place it on record that we do not believe that there is a conflict here. We shall write to the chair of London River Services accordingly and, in doing so, we shall reiterate the importance of considering the wellbeing of the existing services, especially the high quality of current services. I hope that that meets the point that has been raised in relation to existing service providers. In addition I understand that LRS is committed to considering the impact of existing services when it grants licences for new services, if any. I believe that that is primarily a matter for LRS rather than the Bill. It becomes a matter of detailed operational and commercial negotiations. Nevertheless I make it absolutely clear here that our aim to increase the use of the river includes tourist use as well as more functional transport use. We wish to see new attractions all along the river, new investment in piers, boats and transport linkages, and better marketing and information on all of these.

We believe that the size of the tourist and transport markets will grow. We wish to open new routes. Nevertheless we would not wish to see the interests of existing operators who have made an investment in this service jeopardised. We shall make it clear to London River Services that that is our intention. I do not, however, think that it is appropriate to amend the face of the Bill to that effect. I hope that noble Lords will accept my assurances on that matter.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Greenway had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 60: Page 152, line 5, at end insert ("and, in the exercise of this power shall ensure that—

  1. (a) the needs of tourists are taken into account; and
  2. (b) adequate access to any such amenities or facilities is provided for vessels used wholly or mainly for carrying tourists").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would just like to say how grateful I am to the Minister for the assurance he has given and for the promise to write to the chief executive of London River Services. That shows that he has taken on board the strength of feeling in all quarters of the House. I express my thanks to those noble Lords who have supported me in this matter. I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 60 not moved. ]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 61: Page 152, line 5, at end insert— ("(2) Before commencing any works for the purposes of exercising the powers under subsection (1) above, Transport for London shall—

  1. (a) comply with any requirement in an enactment to obtain a licence or consent in respect of the works, or
  2. (b) if there is no such requirement, obtain the consent to the works of any person who is under a duty to maintain the waterway to which they relate.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 255 [Landing places: transfer of certain rights and obligations]:

[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

Clause 260 [Supplementary provisions]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 63: Page 156, line 22, at end insert (", and

  1. (ii) for "and 124" there shall be substituted ". 124 and 266B";").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 63 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64 to 67. This group of amendments provides a mechanism for the transfer of property and liabilities associated with a road which becomes or ceases to be a GLA road by order of the mayor provided elsewhere in the Bill. These provisions are necessary because the transfer provisions elsewhere in the Bill do not provide for these kinds of transfer and we need to rectify that. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation but I have a slight anxiety. The proposed new Section 266A(3) in Amendment No. 66 provides that, any right or liability in respect of—work done, services rendered, goods delivered is not transferred by the proposed new clause. What would happen if a road had recently been resurfaced and the work was substandard? It seems to me that the benefit or otherwise of the work that is done would not be transferred to the new authority. What would happen if the road surface was damaged by a statutory undertaker? It does not seem to me that the right to have it repaired would be transferred. If the Minister cannot answer that question straight away perhaps he will write to me and relieve my anxieties.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I suspect that I shall have to write to the noble Earl to satisfy him completely. If a substandard road is transferred, that will have been taken into account in making the order and the liability would be transferred. I am not sure that I understand the noble Earl's reference to statutory undertakers unless he refers to utilities and others who may dig up a road. I think that is a rather different point which we discussed earlier today. That situation is not affected by the ability to transfer a road in future. However, I shall give the noble Earl a fuller answer in due course.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 67: Page 156. line 28, at end insert (", and

  1. (ii) for "or 124" there shall be substituted "124 or 266B";").
Page 156, line 30, at end insert (", and
  1. (ii) for "or 124" there shall be substituted ", 124 or 266B";").
 After Clause 260, insert the following new clause—