Sitting of 9 February 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    LLOYD'S BILL (By Order)
    order for further consideration, as amended, read. To be further considered upon Thursday.
    CUMBRIA BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    FELTHAM STATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT (LONGFORD

    RIVER) (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Supplementary Benefit
    Mr. Nicholas Ws Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much was allocated for the payment of supplementary benefit in the last 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he has any plans to change this allocation.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The present allocation for 1981–82 is£41/2 billion. This estimate is kept under review and, if necessary, the Government will bring forward proposals for additional Supply.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response and information. Does she agree that, bearing in mind the level of unemployment, more supplementary benefits will be paid out, much of which will go to people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed? Does she believe that it is fair that people who have saved all their lives after working hard, and who are made redundant at the age of 50 or 52, should have to resort, after unemployment benefit has run out, to the savings that they have invested for retirement, not for redundancy?
    Mrs. Chalker: With regard to additional Supply, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the Government's Spring Supplementary Estimates later this month. With regard to the people who are dependent on supplementary benefit, or who would be but for the fact that they have savings of
    842
    over £2,000, my hon. Friend will know that we ale reviewing the operation of the capital cut-off rule in the light of the report of the supplementary benefits policy inspectorate and the many other views that have been expressed on the issue. We shall particularly bear in mind the views expressed in the House, but I am afraid that it is too early for me to give any commitment to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the Minister more up-to-date information of the failure of people to take up supplementary benefit? In 1977 the amount not taken up was £340 million. Is there a more up-to-date figure?
    Mrs. Chalker: We do not have the figures now, but we are making extensive efforts to ensure that those who are entitled to benefits take them up. As soon as further figures are available, I shall be glad to let the House have them.
    Mr. Rooker: Given that Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, and including the Ministers now on the Front Bench, continually refer to supplementary benefit as the safety net for the real poor, why is it planned to tax it from 5 July this year?
    Mrs. Chalker: That is a question for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Where supplementary benefit is being paid in lieu of unemployment benefit because that has been exhausted, it has been the policy of this Government, and of the Labour Party when in Government, that these benefits should be brought into taxation as soon as feasible.

    Widows (pensions)
    Mr. McQuarrieie asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons are in receipt of widows pensions; and how many widows under 40 years of age had the pension withdrawn after the period laid down by law in 1979, 1980 and 1981, respectively.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): About 422,000 women were receiving either a widow's pension or a widowed mother's allowance in June 1981—the latest date for which information is available. It is estimated that there are fewer than 1,500 widows annually who are widowed before 40 who initially receive a widow's allowance for 26 weeks, but do not qualify thereafter for either a widow's pension or widowed mother's allowance.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he tell the House whether there is any possibility of the Government amending existing legislation to give a permanent pension to widows under 40? Are the Government also considering taking other widows out of the tax liability structure if they are forced to take up employment which then puts on them penalties that are entirely against the intended ethics of the widow's pension.
    Mr. Rossi: I regret that I must disappoint my hon. Friend. Even the cost of moving the age limit for full widow's pensions to 40 would be about£40 million a year. We are unable to estimate the higher cost involved in removing all the age limits for widows' pensions. We do not consider it justified use of resources to treat younger widows without children on a different basis from other single women. However, they can be given an accelerated

    843
    start into short-term sickness or unemployment benefit if, at the end of the period of receipt of a widow's allowance, they experience difficulty in finding a suitable job.

    Taxation of earnings is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Dental Therapists
    Mr. Guy Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has now placed in the Library the statement on the training of dental therapists after 1983 to which he referred in the Official Report, 21 January, column 522.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): The statement was placed in the Library on 2 February.
    Mr. Barnett: Has the Minister satisfied himself—and taken counsel's opinion to ensure—that there are no legal impediments to the training of dental therapists at dental schools?
    Mr. Finsberg: According to the advice available to me, there are no legal impediments.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Is the Minister prepared to give the House a definite assurance that even one dental therapist will be trained somewhere outside New Cross in the next two years?
    Mr. Finsberg: I can only remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said on a previous occasion. I have every expectation that there will be dental schools, not only in London but outside, that will be prepared to take on the training.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Why has the Minister decided to close the school before he can be absolutely sure that there is some other dental school that will train the therapists? They have been proved to do an excellent job, particularly in child hygiene, and there has been no criticism of their work.
    Mr. Finsberg: That is exactly what I told the hon. Lady. What she fails time and again to take in is that about 500 therapists are already trained and not in employment. We are still training two groups of 40 therapists, for whom, on present indications of demand by health authorities, there may not be posts.

    "CHC News"
    Mr. Haynesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much was the grant for the publication of "CHC News" during 1981–82; and how much the grant for 1982–83 will be.
    17. Mr. Park askedthe Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the proposed change in the funding of "CHC News" for 1982–83.
    19. Mr. Dan Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has had with community health councils about the future of "CHC News".
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The estimated cost of central funding for "CHC News" and the associated information service this year is £74,000. In our view, these services should be paid for by community health councils
    844
    themselves, and the Department is discussing with representatives of their association how the transition from central to subscription funding might best be made.
    Mr. Haynes: Is not the Minister ashamed to give such a reply, since that publication is the official organ of community health councils and communicates with the people whom it represents? It seems that the Government want the publication to go. The Minister should be ashamed of himself. Are the Minister and the Government expecting community health councils to meet the cost, because at the moment those councils are providing a valuable service——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.
    Mr. Finsberg: I could answer the hon. Gentleman by saying: "No, we are not ashamed". I shall expand on that slightly. The function of a community health council is to look after the interests of the patients in its area. We believe that if the councils want to produce such a publication, they should fund it and not use Government funding.
    Mr. Park: Does the Minister want more or fewer people to take an interest in the National Health Service?
    Mr. Haynes: That is what they are after.
    Mr. Park: Would it not be more accurate to say that the real reason for the change is that "CHC News" has on occasion dared to be critical of the Government?
    Mr. Finsberg: I seem to remember "CHC News" being critical of more than one Government. My wife was a member of a community health council—[Interruption]. That factor did not enter into the mind of the Government when considering funding. It is one of our major principles that the money should be spent by community health councils if they wish to continue that publication.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that, other than being a Member of Parliament, I have an opportunity to see the work of a community health councils without wearing a political hat? I value that work very much. Does my hon. Friend think that it would be worth reconsidering keeping that valuable publication?
    Mr. Finsberg: No, Sir, I do not. There is nothing in the decision to show that the Government believe that community health councils are not doing a good job. We believe that they are. However, we do not believe that a national publication is necessarily the right thing to be funded by the Government.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Does the Minister accept that "CHC News" helps members of community health councils to do a better job? Does it make good economic sense to issue a circular that suggests that the number of members of community health councils should be reduced and at the same time insists that "CHC News" should be funded by subscriptions from that smaller number of members?
    Mr. Finsberg: The size of community health councils is the subject of a later question. If the publication is regarded by community health councils as a valuable piece of literature, I do not believe that the decision that they rather than the Government should be asked to fund it can be faulted.
    Mr. Latham: Whatever the future funding of that publication, will it be possible for the next edition to

    845
    contain details of how my hon. Friend proposes to ensure that Leicestershire's 800,000 people have more than one community health council?
    Mr. Finsberg: I shall be delighted to look into that point, which is not related to this question, but which shows the real value of a community health council at local level.

    Nurses
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the average increase in basic salaries of nurses employed in the National Health Service since April 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): The average increase in basic salaries of nurses employed in the National Health Service since April 1979—including the 1 April 1979 pay settlement—ranges from 100 per cent. for area nursing officers at the maximum of their pay scale, to 63 per cent. for ward sisters at both the minimum and maximum of their pay scale, to 42 per cent. for nursing auxiliaries at the minimum of their scale. These differential pay increases have been negotiated by the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council according to their priorities.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the progress being made at the present negotiations? Does he agree that the relative level of nurses' pay is determined not only by the outcome of their negotiations but by how many other groups in the community insist on a pay increase that is substantially more than the nurses are likely to get?
    Mr. Fowler: As a matter of overall Government policy, we have made it clear time and again drat the pay awards that are made must be related to what the nation can afford. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks. The negotiation is a matter for the Whitley council. It has not yet begun, although it will begin later this month.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is it not true that in the same period the Armed Forces and the police have had substantially higher pay increases than the nurses? Does he not agree that a nurse is as important to the community as a policeman or a soldier?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I am committed to seeking fair treatment for the nurses. I pay tribute to their work. The hon. Gentleman takes me on to his question about long-term arrangements. I shall reserve my comments until that question is asked.
    Mr. Alton: Has the Secretary of State had time to consider my representations to his Department about the possibility of introducing special allowances for nurses working in inner city areas? Is he aware that some nurses have to tolerate conditions that would make those faced by people such as Florence Nightingale seem mild in comparison? Is he aware also that some nurses have had to put up with their cars being burnt out and that others have been stoned whilst in uniform in one of our cities?
    Mr. Fowler: I am aware of the problems, although I do not accept for one moment that what the hon. Gentleman has described is a generalisation that can be applied to all inner city areas. Clearly, there are problems in inner city areas which the Government would like to tackle.
    Mr. McCrindle: If the Government could be sure that other employees in the public sector would not jump on the bandwagon, would my right hon. Friend turn his attention favourably to a settlement for the nurses of considerably over 4 per cent.?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not prepared to be drawn prior to the meeting of the Whitley council, which has not begun to consider the claim and which will not meet for the first time until later this month.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: If the Minister has said to the staff side that he requires it to do the homework, and if it has told him how he can work out comparable rates with people outside the nursing profession, why does he not come clean and admit that he is cutting back on the standard of nurses' pay, because he has done so in two previous years as well?
    Mr. Fowler: That is absolute rubbish. I shall give the hon. Lady the figures. We have devoted an extra£1 billion to the nurses' pay bill, and there has been an increase of 76 per cent. in the nurses' pay bill since this Government took office. That shows the value that the Government place on nurses.

    Royal College of Nursing
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing.
    13. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made towards devising a method of payment of nurses mutually acceptable to his Department and the staff side.
    Mr. Fowler: I last met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing together with other representatives of the staff side of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council at a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 18 December. This followed a meeting I had with representatives of the staff side on 10 December. On both occasions the Government's commitment to finding a more satisfactory arrangement for nurses' pay was emphasised. We are now anxious to make good progress in developing these arrangements, and I have just circulated a paper setting out my views about possible approaches and suggestions for taking matters further, which I hope to discuss with representatives of both sides of the Whitley council. I would like this meeting to take place as soon as possible, and certainly before the end of the month.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Do not the figures given by my right hon. Friend in his answer to the previous question show that the history of this matter has consisted of periods of erosion followed by a catching-up process? Does that not underline the urgency of finding a newer and more proficient system of negotiating pay? Does he understand that in his efforts to speed up this matter he has the good will of many hon. Members?
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is why we are seeking a permanent new arrangement for nurses' pay which, as I think the House will agree, many people in the profession regard as their No. 1 aim.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not clear that there will be no such new arrangement in the current financial year, and that,

    847
    meanwhile, there is a strong rumour—I put it no higher than that—that the Government will insist on an increase of 4 per cent. for nurses this year? If that is correct, is the Minister aware that the whole nation will be appalled and angered at this niggardly approach to the most worthwhile profession in the country, and that the country is unanimously behind the nurses?
    Mr. Fowler: I repeat that the Whitley council has not yet met to consider the nurses' first claim. There is no question about the Government's commitment to nurses. Since this Government came to power, 21,000 extra nurses have been employed in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: In the course of my right hon. Friend's meeting with the Royal College of Nurses, did he take the opportunity to point out that the Government's success, with the assistance of the private and public sectors, in achieving moderation in wage claims——
    Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member talked out the death grant Bill on Friday.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: ——particularly, for example, the moderation in the miner's wage claim—is a significant factor in assisting the Government perhaps to consider making special arrangements for nurses this year?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend's general point is an important one and has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). I say again that I am not prepared to be drawn, prior to the meeting of the Whitley council.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Secretary of State concede that the present pace of the Whitley council is extremely slow and cumbersome? Will he continue to apply pressure for a speedy result and stop repeating his claim about the 21,000 new nurses, when part of the reason is that their hours were reduced from 40 to 37 a week? The 21,000 nurses are still doing the same job as they were before.
    Mr. Fowler: Part of the reason is, of course, that the hours of work have gone down. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would think that that was a good idea and that he would pay credit to the Government for having financed that.
    Mrs. Knight: Without asking my right hon. Friend to look ahead to the Whitley negotiations, will he always keep at the forefront of his mind that nurses provide a much-needed service and set a shining example of never striking, which others would do well to follow?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said. I pay tribute to that and to the nurses who work in the hospital in my hon. Friend's constituency, which I visited during the vacation.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the hon. Lady's comment, which I support, about the wonderful example of these public servants who never strike, will the Secretary of State consider giving them no increase, but pay them the same attendance allowance as that received by Members of the House of Lords, who are good public servants and who never strike? Does the Secretary of State agree that nurses would love to have the equivalent of hundreds of pounds or the tax free allowances of£35 and£40 a day that Members of the House of Lords receive?
    Mr. Fowler: I prefer to maintain the course that we have already set and seek a new permanent arrangement for nurses' pay.

    Earnings-related Supplement
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total cost of benefit paid in earnings-related supplement in 1980 and 1981; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rossi: The total cost of earnings-related supplements in the financial year 1980–81 was £339 million. It is estimated that the total cost in 1981-82 will be £325 million.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that during the International Year of Disabled People this Government took 10 per cent. off the earnings-related supplement which goes to people who are injured at work, mothers-to-be, widows, and so on, and that, the day after that year ended, they took away £325 million from those who are wrecked in their jobs? What about all the talk that the Prime Minister trotted out when she came to office three years ago about hope and compassion, when throughout this Government's——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time.
    Mr. Rossi: Social security payments, under various heads, for disabled people is £3,000 million a year. That is more than was ever paid by any Government, and it has been increased in real terms under this Government. The Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 was fully debated in the House. All these questions were raised then, and the House voted on them. I have nothing to add to what was said during the passage of that measure through the House.

    Flexible Retirement
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish a consultative paper setting out ways in which a flexible retirement system could be introduced.
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Social Services is currently studying the age of retirement. The evidence given by the Department to the Committee, which has recently been published, sets out our position on the subject. In the light of the Committee's report, which should be published later this year, we shall consider how best we can move towards the long-term objective of introducing greater flexibility of retirement.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the idea of flexible retirement is attractive, it is also likely to be particularly expensive? Will she confirm that, in considering the possibility of moving towards flexible retirement dates, she will weigh in the balance the respective advantages of increasing the basic rates of pension? Finally, will she have consultations with the private pensions industry, which may feel that it has to move in line with the Government, in which case only the contributors are available to pay?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, not only with the cost of moving to a system of flexible retirement, but with the interim costs associated with increasing the basic rates of pension in line with inflation and faster than the index of prices. I assure my hon. Friend that in all our discussions, when we have received the report from the Select Committee, we shall take close account of what the private pensions industry says.

    849
    However, at this stage I cannot presage the future basic rates of pension, except to say that of course they will be kept at least in line with prices.
    Mr. Newens: As so many people are unemployed, might it not make good sense to enable those in later middle age who are in ill health to retire, so that they can enjoy the years that they have left and so that others may have an opportunity to take worthwhile jobs?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, bul: he knows that an overall reduction in the pension age would be very costly. He spoke about those in ill health who would appreciate early retirement. Such retirement is possible in many cases through the job release scheme. Those who have been unable to continue in employment, who have spent more than a year on supplementary benefit and who are aged over 60 can now deregister and receive the long-term rate. I understand full well the hon. Gentleman's point about those in ill health, but avenues are opening all the time to the possibility of early retirement.
    Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that her original answer will prove encouraging? What prospect is there of expanding the job release scheme?
    Mrs. Chalker: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I shall draw it to his attention.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that in areas of high unemployment thousands and thousands of men in their early sixties long to retire—in some cases are desperately eager to do so—and that at the same time there are also those in their forties and fifties who have recently been made redundant and who fear that they will never again have an opportunity of employment?
    Mrs. Chalker: We shall bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind. The evidence given to the Select Committee and the responses made to the Government's White Paper "Growing Older" are very much in our minds. However, to take any immediate action, such as a reduction of the male pension age to 60, would cost about£2,500 million per annum. Such costs cannot readily be entertained at present.

    Pensioners (Benefits)
    11. Mr. Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met representatives of the National Federation of Old Age Pensioner Associations to discuss levels of benefit for pensioners.
    Mr. Fowler: I have arranged to meet representatives of the federation on 15 February, when I expect to discuss, among other things, the level of benefits for pensioners.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the federation is greatly concerned because anyone with savings in excess of£300 is ineligible for the additional heating supplements available to those on supplementary benefit? Will he review that sum, particularly as many have put that£300 aside to pay for their funerals?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. We are considering the£300 limit for single payments. However, he will understand that we are now spending more than£250 million per annum to help with fuel benefits. I confirm that we shall reconsider that point.
    Mr. Rooker: Before the Secretary of State meets those representatives, will he prepare a paper showing how pensioners' benefits have been eroded by the Government due to the massive increase in taxation on the elderly?
    Mr. Fowler: I doubt whether I shall prepare such a paper, but I might point out to the pensioners that inflation rose by 110 per cent. Under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many pensioners do not explore the possibility of benefits because they are too proud to seek to qualify by telling someone all their business? Does my right hon. Friend realise that many pensioners believe that they are too rich to qualify for benefits and too poor to use their limited savings? Does he have any plans to scale down benefits and to pay pensioners a decent pension?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which I shall consider. We certainly want to make progress in the amount of take-up and information that is provided.
    Mr. Cryer: Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that the Government cannot possibly increase the benefits to pensioners—who are often in desperate circumstances—when that self-same Government are spending£1 billion on re-motoring Polaris? Indeed, they undertook such action without any authority from the House. The Government who say that they cannot help pensioners propose to spend between£5 billion and£10 billion on Trident missiles. Are those the Government's priorities?
    Mr. Fowler: The fatal flaw in the hon. Gentleman s argument is that he implies that we are cutting, not increasing, benefits. However, we have increased pensions by 52 per cent. in line with inflation. That is the pledge that we gave at the election and that is the pledge that we stand by.

    District Health Authorities
    12. Mr. Nelsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to correct the under-funding of district health authorities whose financial allocation by regional health authorities is substantially below that which they would receive if it were based on the formula which his Department uses for distributing funds to regional authorities.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): Regional health authorities are responsible for allocating funds to their districts and I am assured that they take account of local priorities and needs.
    Mr. Nelson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, given the formula that the Department uses for allocating money to the South-West Thames regional health authority, Chichester health authority is under-funded by 20 per cent? Is he further aware that, at the same time, there is a desperate and pressing need for improved day-care and psychogeriatric facilities? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that some rural areas get their fair share? Is there not a great disparity between the criteria for the funding of district health authorities and those for the Department's funding of regional authorities?
    Dr. Vaughan: That is an important point. The total budget for the South-West Thames region is£544 million,

    851
    which is an increase of 0.46 per cent. compared with the previous year. There are problems in the allocation between the different districts. I understand that the region is looking at the matter to see whether it can find a better way of allocating resources, particularly for districts such as Chichester.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Stoke-on-Trent have to wait many months—and in some cases up to a year—for hospital appointments to find out what is wrong with them, let alone receive treatment? As that is due to the mis-allocation of regional funds, what will the Minister do about such a scandalous situation?
    Dr. Vaughan: That is a rather extraordinary question. In the two and a half years in which the Government have been in office we have maintained our pledge to increase funds to the NHS. Compared with 1978,£6,000 million more is being spent on the NHS. During that time, waiting lists have fallen by no fewer than 120,000, although they increased every year under a Labour Government.

    Nurses
    14. Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the forecast of the number of nurses to be employed in the National Health Service for the year 1981–82; and what is the latest figure available.
    Mr. Fowler: The number of nurses to be employed is a matter determined by individual health authorities against the background of their needs and the resources available to meet those needs. The whole-time equivalent total of nurses and midwives employed in the National Health Service in England, including unqualified nursing staff and agency nurses, was 370,000 at 30 September 1980.
    Mr. Morris: In determining nurses' pay, is it not a problem that no one at the DHSS can communicate to the Treasury how many nurses it should budget for in the coming year? Is that not one reason why nurses get shortchanged, resulting in an increase lower than the cash limit?
    Mr. FowlerThat is not a reason for the difficulties that have been faced over the years. All I can say about pay is that the Whitley council meets later this month. We are committed to trying to find a better permanent arrangement for nurses' pay.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I shall ask a short question and I hope to receive a short answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman happy with the pay that nurses receive?
    Mr. Fowler: Again, that is a matter for the Whitley council. For the past two and a half years we have sought to treat nurses fairly. That is why the pay bill for nurses has increased by 76 per cent.
    Mr. Stokes: Do not the figures show that, on a supply and demand basis, the present pay levels of nurses cannot be far wrong? Much as we all admire nurses, should they not, as other public sector workers, be unselfish in their pay demands and consider the private sector, where there have been no pay increases and sometimes redundancies?
    Mr. Fowler: We wish to see a permanent new arrangement whereby the nurses can achieve a fair deal
    852
    year after year. What both sides of the House must wish to avoid are the annual crises that have been a feature of the past 10 to 20 years.
    Mr. Dan Jones: Is the Secretary of State now saying that he is prepared to leave this important issue to be settled as a matter between the nurses and the Whitley council?
    Mr. Fowler: Of course I am saying that, because that is the negotiating machinery whereby nurses' pay is determined.

    Supplementary Benefit
    15. Mr. Sainsbury asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will seek to amend the Social Security Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1981 paragraph 17(1)(b) so that a payment towards the cost of repairs can be made even when the total cost of the repairs exceeds£225.
    Mrs. Chalker: No, Sir. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but the supplementary benefits scheme is not designed to help with major repairs or improvements to the housing stock, and£225 was adopted as a reasonable limit for minor repairs.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather absurd that if the total cost of essential repairs is£226, no single payment can be made, but if it is£224 the entire cost can be met by a single payment? Is not the result of that likely to be that some of the more than half a million supplementary benefit recipients who own their homes will be forced to sell up and may well have to be rehoused at far greater cost to the Exchequer?
    Mrs. Chalker: Wherever the line is drawn on a limit there will inevitably be problems, but I shall consider the administrative workings of what my hon. Friend said. May I point out to him that we have carried on, in the supplementary benefit scheme, exactly the practice that was carried on by the former Supplementary Benefits Commission, which was that it was not the business of providing supplementary benefit to finance the refurbishment of housing. Local authorities have powers to make maturity loans. Building societies can extend mortgages for major repairs. Housing improvement grants are available, but the commission recognised years ago that loans for small amounts might not be readily available. That was why the practice of exceptional needs payments towards the cost of minor repairs was started and why also it is considered right to meet the interest on repayments if a maturity loan or mortgage is taken out.
    Mr. Hooley: Is it true that boys and girls who do 21 hours or less of education a week will in future be denied the chance of drawing supplementary benefit?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand that the chief supplementary benefits officer has considered the regulations that were originally appropriate to take account of the hours worked by sixth formers in schools, who are not in the main entitled to supplementary benefit. As those regulations now apply to a wider group—those who have left school at 16 but who go on to further education—they have been applied in the same way to that group. The current drafting equates with the old system, but I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
    16. Mr. Ron Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what circulars he has issued to local authorities about their obligations under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
    Mr. Rossi: The only circular on the subject was issued jointly by the Departments concerned in August 1970.
    Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister tell the House how many local authorities are operating unlawful waiting lists under section 2? Will he ensure that all persons whose need has been accepted are given the necessary treatment quickly? Will he stop dithering?
    Mr. Rossi: I am not aware of any local authorities operating unlawful waiting lists. However, if the hon. Gentleman knows of a case, I shall ensure that it is investigated.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities have cut their social services by so much that people must wait for up to two years before they can receive treatment? As a result, because many of those people are old, they will die before they can be treated. Will the Minister take some action?
    Mr. Rossi: It is true that the provision varies from local authority to local authority, but overall local authorities have increased their expenditure on personal social services in the past two years by about 7 per cent.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that large numbers of severely disabled people are being herded on to waiting lists for services for which they have been assessed, and are being made to wait, not just week by week or month by month, but year by year now, for services that they desperately need? Is the Minister further aware of Mr. Peter Westland's statement on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that, because of the Government's cuts in local authority spending, some councils can no longer meet their legal duties under the Act? Is that why he is not using his default powers in appropriate cases, as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and 14 other major organisations of and for the disabled wish him to do?
    Mr. Rossi: RADAR has referred 12 cases to my right hon. Friend. Inquiries were completed in nine cases, and no reason has been found for implementing the default procedure. Three cases are still being investigated.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q1. Mr. Mylesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Myles: During her busy schedule, and even while she relaxes a little, will my right hon. Friend recall her visit to Glenfarclas distillery, when she was presented with the problems of the Scots whisky industry? Will she, as First Lord of the Treasury, prevent any swingeing increase
    854
    in duty on this doyen of the drink trade, which would jeopardise jobs from the maltings to the blending and bottling plants?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise the spirit of my hon. Friend's question and the strength of feeling with which he asks it. The proportion of tax to total cost of a bottle of whisky is now slightly lower than it was at the end of the Labour Administration.
    Mr. Foot: Did the right hon. Lady have a chance yesterday or today to study the extremely alarming letter that was published in The Times from the Chief Medical Officer of Health about lead poisoning from petrol? Does she accept the view that brain damage to hundreds of thousands of children might be involved and does she not believe that, in reviewing the letter, much more urgent action must be taken by the Government to deal with the problem?
    The Prime Minister: I know of the letter, but the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that last May my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services announced a wide-ranging package of measures designed to reduce further people 's exposure to environmental pollution by lead. The measures included a reduction in the maximum permitted amount of lead added to petrol from 0.4 grams per litre to 0.15 grams per litre by the end of 1985. That was the earliest date by which the oil industry could make the necessary changes to its refineries.

    The Government's decision closely reflected Sir Henry's views and the reduction schedule gives us the earliest possible substantial reduction in petrol lead emissions that he recommended. Wholly lead-free petrol could be introduced in the United Kingdom only in the long term, because the present generation of cars on British roads could not use it. New engines would have to be designed and brought into service. As the ca manufacturing industry is Europe-wide, a change in British industry would be impossible without prior agreement with other European countries.
    Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Lady really telling the House that the statement to which she has referred took lull account of such a report from the Chief Medical Officer of Health, with the alarming prospects that he underlined? Why cannot Britain take the same steps to protect children from damage as are taken in the United States of America, Japan, Sweden, Australia and many other countries?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that more steps have been taken by the Conservative Government than by any previous Government to reduce the lead content of petrol. As I thought that this question might be raised I inquired carefully. I repeat that the decison announced by my right hon. Friend in May 1981 closely reflected Sir Henry's views. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my last point about the design of cars in Europe and the need for a Europe-wide agreement, he would know the answer to the second part of his question.
    Mr. Rathbone: May I ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of my constituent, Sir Freddie Laker, although not at his request, and on behalf of his employees and the users of Laker Airways, whether she can spare a moment in her busy day to consider the extension by two months of Laker

    855
    Airways' operator's certificate and route licenses, without which its future is likely to be very non-assured and all its efforts will come to nothing?
    The Prime Minister: I well understand my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, I am a Freddie Laker fan. Whatever Sir Freddie's difficulties now are, nothing can take away from the great service that he has performed in giving the possibility of travel to people who never dreamed that they would have it. I think that my hon. Friend's specific point relates to the announcement that the licences may have been suspended, or notice given that they are to be suspended within six days. The operative word is "suspension". I understand that they can be "de-suspended", if that is the right word——
    Mr. Cryer: It is not a word at all, really.
    The Prime Minister: —and that, naturally, the suspension would be terminated if there were a reasonable possibility of Laker Airways being sold in its entirety to someone who could continue to operate it as it was operated.
    Mr. David Steel: Returning to the previous question, as the Government are giving four years' notice to both the international oil industry and the international motor car industry, why do we not take the opportunity afforded by that notice to require completely lead-free petrol at the end of that time?
    The Prime Minister: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what I said towards the end of my lengthy and considered answer. The present generation of cars on United Kingdom roads could not use lead-free petrol. New engines would have to be designed and brought into service. As the car manufacturing industry is Europe-wide, the change would be impossible for British industry withour prior agreement among the European countries concerned.

    Obviously,, we are very concerned about the reported effect of lead. That is why we have taken action with regard to lead in petrol. We shall, of course, consider any further measures, but we have to do so in agreement with Europe. We must also consider the wider effect that I mentioned.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a constituency question before we return to the open questions.

    Cruden Bay
    Q2. Mr. McQuarrieasked the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Cruden Bay in the East Aberdeenshire constituency.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I regret that my right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Cruden Bay, where she would be most welcome. Is she aware that loss of development area status in the Grampian region, which includes Cruden Bay, is having a penal effect upon employment in the indigenous industries in my constituency? Will she find time to meet her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss bringing forward the review, which at present is not due to be brought forward until August?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I cannot visit my hon. Friend's constituency, but I am glad to tell him that
    856
    my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now embarking on the review and hopes to be able to announce the results in the spring. I am sure that he will take into account the views of my hon. Friend and of the interested local authorities.

    Engagements
    Q3. Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of Conservative Members about statements, such as those emanating from NATO recently, which suggest that the RAF will be "light" by 100 planes by the end of this year? Will she prevail upon her right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow greater flexibility within the defence budget so that we may fulfil our election pledges on defence as well as assure the jobs and stability of our world-beating aerospace and defence industries?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is about right on the reduction in aircraft by mid-1982. The reduction relates to Vulcans, Canberras, Shackletons and Buccaneers, but he has, perhaps, forgotten that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the House more than a year ago about the early withdrawal of older aircraft types in order to preserve the major investment programme about which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned. We are fulfilling our election pledges and also the NATO pledge.
    I should point out to my hon. Friend that defence procurement has increased considerably under the Conservative Government. We took over from the Labour Government a procurement programme of£2.9 billion. This year the figure is£5.5 billion, so we are really doing our stuff on defence procurement and honouring our election pledges.

    On my hon. Friend's last point, we recognised the advantages to programme managers of introducing some form of end-year flexibility in respect of capital or equivalent expenditure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long"]—and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is looking at this again. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is so much noise that I cannot hear the Prime Minister. She is entitled to complete her answer.
    Mr. James Callaghan: On a related question, is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's decisions to withdraw and pay off HMS "Endurance" when she returns from the South Atlantic is an error that could have serious consequences? Is she further aware that this stale old proposition was put to me on more than one occasion when I was Prime Minister and after considering it I turned it down flat? Will she please do the same?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise that this was a very difficult decision for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are many competing claims on the defence budget, even though we are increasing it substantially. He will also know that the defence capability

    857
    of that ship is extremely limited. My right hon. Friend therefore felt that other claims on the defence budget should have greater priority.
    Mr. Butcher: Bearing in mind that British Rail loses£2 million per day even when fully operational, does my right hon. Friend agree that the further deterioration of its financial position as a result of the current dispute provides an overwhelming reason for privatisation of its activities both within and outside the rail network?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that there are many aspects of British Rail that could yet be privatised. Some have already been privatised, but I hope that British Rail will press ahead with further privatisation measures. I also wholly agree with my hon. Friend about British Rail's losses. I believe that they will be even more far-reaching than the purely financial losses, in that they may well involve losses in freight and passenger business for ever.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that for a mere£500 snoopers will be able to obtain private and
    858
    confidential information from personal, medical, financial and police records on her or on any Member of the House or indeed any citizen of this country? Is that not utterly wrong? Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that the Government will not only introduce a White Paper on this subject, but will also legislate on this matter within the next 12 months?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the newspaper report this morning. I share the hon. Gentleman's distaste that this information should be available. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing a White Paper this year. We agree that legislation is urgent. I hope that it will come forward in the next Session of Parliament.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Ordered,
    That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.— [Mr. Thompson.]

Transport (London) Act 1969 (Amendment)
3.31 pm
Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to clarify the meaning of the Transport (London) Act 1969 by providing for the Greater London Council power to make grants towards the current expenses of the London Transport Executive where such grants appear to the Council to be required to provide or secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as best meet the needs for the time being of Greater London; to provide that such grants shall be treated as revenue of the Executive; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is intended to end the confusion caused by the recent Lords judgment and to restore to the law the meaning which everyone believed it had before that judgment.
I am assuming today that the Law Lords were correct in their reading of the present Act, although anyone who studies the admirable speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in the debate on 23 December may doubt that and conclude that the Act is at least highly ambiguous.
It is, of course, the judges' duty to interpret the law. It is our duty to enact the law and to amend it. If the 1969 Act means what the Lords say it means, that law must be amended and clarified.
The Lords quite properly did not indulge in any study of transport economics. As a result of the combined efforts of Parliament and the Lords, a legal obligation has been imposed on the London Transport Executive which is economically impossible to carry out. Virtually no transport undertaking in any great city of the world can cover all its costs out of revenue, largely because the development of the motor car has congested city streets and diverted a large amount of custom from public transport. All the figures prove that.
Before the recent cut in fares, about 75 per cent. of London Transport costs were covered by revenue from fares. After the cuts, the figure was 54 per cent. In Berlin only 39 per cent. of costs are covered by fares, in Paris 44 per cent., in New York 55 per cent., and in Brussels only 30 per cent. If we fly in the face of economic reality and try to force London Transport to do something which is commercially impossible, considerable damage will be done to the undertaking, to Londoners, and to the economy of London generally.
In Sir Peter Masefield's own words, in a letter to The Times, we shall
"seriously undermine the standards of public transport in London."
The closure of services and the doubling of fares will prevent many people from travelling to work. The chairman of London Transport apparently will be breaking the law, whether or not he raises fares. The Lords' judgment rested mainly on section 7(3) which requires the executive to balance expenses with revenue so far as is practicable. This was held by the Lords to qualify section 3 of the Act which says that
"the Council"——
that is, the Greater London Council——
"shall have power to make grants to the Executive for any purpose"
Many people took that to mean exactly what it says.
My Bill makes it clear, first, that the grants that the council can provide include grants towards the current
860
costs of London Transport and, secondly, that such grants can be counted as revenue before current revenue is balanced against current expenditure. This would, in effect, transfer decisions on the economic policy of London Transport from the courts to the electors of London where they should reside.
The then Minister of Transport, introducing the Bill on 17 December 1968, said
"The basic purpose of the Bill is to place the main responsibilities for transport in London where, in my view, they belong—with the people of London, through their elected representatives on the Greater London Council.
The present Prime Minister, then speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said in reply:
"I do not think anyone will quarrel with the main purpose".— [Official Report, 17 December 1968, Vol. 775, c. 1244, 1255.]
It is that purpose that my Bill seeks to carry out. The national budget, I believe, here as in the United States, must contribute something towards the cost of London Transport. I cannot, however, include that in my Bill because I am advised that it would technically impose a charge. I do not pretend that the Bill is perfectly drafted. If the Minister will take it over and let the professional draftsmen do better, I shall be delighted. I have great respect for the professional draftsmen if only because I can never understand what they write.
I hope at least that the Minister will recognise that this is a highly serious economic issue affecting 10 million people or more, that some early legislation is essential and that it must be treated as such an issue and not simply regarded as a subject for juvenile party political slogans. Almost the entire press, from The Times to The Standard, and the chairman of London Transport agree that new legislation is necessary. In that spirit, I hope that the House will agree that the Bill should at least go forward for further debate.
3.37 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I wish to oppose the Bill. One cannot fail to be impressed by the manner in which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) presented his case, but I am afraid that his speech gives only one side of the story. Up to May last year, London Transport had been managed in a sound and forward-looking way by both parties that had had responsibility for it since 1969. It was receiving subsidies of£250 million from taxpayers in one form or another. No one can deny that London receives a satisfactory share of subsidy in this country amounting to no less than 40 per cent. of the total transport supplementary grant paid last year.
On top of this, there is the free gift of the entire undertaking to the Greater London Council by the Government in 1969. There was absolutely no charge for buses, trains, offices, stations, lines, plant, machinery and fixtures and fittings. The Secretary of State of the day was pleased to lose this responsibility and agreed the terms laid down by the Greater London Council. Certainly, at that time, the GLC had no wish to acquire an expensive albatross around its neck that would have to be passed on to the ratepayers. In the event, it did not. It was in that light that the Transport (London) Act 1969 was passed. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to me that the Lords ruling was given as it was because the parties involved in

861
the negotiations in 1968—I was there—certainly did not envisage a revolutionary system of a Livingstone type or any other form.
To hear some speak now, one might conclude that public transport in this country is dealt with in a shameful way, compared with other countries. The latest figures available for a broad spread are for 1976. In Sweden, the government gave 0.32 per cent. of gross national product to subsidise its transport system. In Belgium and the Netherlands, the figure was 0.25 per cent.; France 0.21 per cent.; Norway, 0.2 per cent., which is an estimate because the latest figure is for the previous year; Ireland, 0.14 per cent.; Finland, 0.13 per cent.; Canada and Switzerland, 0.12 per cent.; United States, 0.11 per cent.; Greece, 0.06 per cent., and Spain, 0.04 per cent.
The United Kingdom is second, with a 0.25 per cent. subsidy. Against this background, we find today a belligerent GLC led by a man who has by his actions brought matters near to chaos. He has been assured that if he goes back to the pre-May 1981 position, should there be any doubt about the law, the Government will do their best to help with the necessary legislation. But this he will not accept because he hopes to advance his cause by chaos. The Government have made clear their determination to protect old people's fare concessions, but where is the GLC's sympathy for old people's rates? They get no extra benefit for profligate local public transport.
The old people do not wish to subsidise tourist travel, nor do they wish to subsidise office rents in central London, which is exactly what is done by giving cheap transport. Nor do they wish to give subsidies to the office workers for the whole of the South-East outside the Greater London area. They do not wish to see suburban industry hammered with extra rate burdens that reduce their ability to employ local school leavers. Like most taxpayers and ratepayers, they wish to see sound management with capital investment in long-term projects leading to such things as single manning and a more efficient system. This will not be achieved by a return to the previous situation proposed by the Bill. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will vote against it.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 177.

Division No. 63]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Adley.Robert

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Aitken, Jonathan

Chapman, Sydney

Alexander, Richard

Churchill, W.S.

Alison, RtHon Michael

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

Amery, RtHon Julian

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Ancram, Michael

Clarke, Kenneib(Rushcliffe)

Arnold, Tom

Clegg, Sir Walter

Aspinwall, Jack

Cockeram, Eric

Atkins, RtHon H.(S'thorne

Colvin, Michael

Atkins, Robert (PPrestonN)

Cope, John

Atkinson, David

Cormack, Patrick

Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

Corrie, John

Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)

Costain, SirAlbert

Beaumont-Dark.Anthony

Cranborne, Viscount

Bell, SirRonald

Critchley, Julian

Bendall, Vivian

Crouch, David

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)

Benyon,Thomas(A'don)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Best, Keith

Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

Bevan, David Gilroy

Dover, Denshore

Biffen, RtHon John

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Biggs-Davison.SirJohn

Dunn, Roben(Dartford)

Blackburn, John

Durant, Tony

Body, Richard

Dykes, Hugh

Bonsor, SirNlcholas

Eden, RtHon Sir John

Boscawen, HonRobert

Eggar, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Elliott, SlrWilliam

Bowden, Andrew

Eyre, Reginald

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Fairgrieve, SirRussell

Braine, SirBernard

Faith, MrsSheila

Bright, Graham

Farr, John

Brinton, Tim

Fell, SirAnthony

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Brooke, Hon Peter

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Brotherton, Michael

Fisher, SirNigel

Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)

Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

Browrn B,Jobn(Winchester)

Fletcher-Cooke.SirCharles

Bruce-Gardyne,John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Buck, Antony

Forman, Nigel

Budgen, Nick

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Bulmer, Esmond

Fox, Marcus

Burden, SirFrederick

Fraser, Peter (SouthAngus)

Butcher, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Glyn, DrAlan

942

Goodhart,SirPhilip

Marland,Paul

Goodhew,SirVictor

Marlow,Antony

Goodlad,Alastair

Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

Gorst,John

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Gow, Ian

Mates, Michael

Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Gray, Hamish

Mawby, Ray

Greenway, Harry

Mawhinney, DrBrian

Grieve, Percy

Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin

Griffiths, E,(BySt,Edm'ds)

Mayhew, Patrick

Griffiths, Peter Portsm’thN)

Mellor,David

Grist, Ian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Grylls,Michael

Miller, Hal(B'grove)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mills, lain(Meriden)

Hamilton, HonA,

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Miscampbell, Norman

Hampson, DrKeith

Moate, Roger

Hannam, John

Monro, SirHector

Haselhurst, Alan

Montgomery, Fergus

Hastings, Stephen

Moore, John

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Morgan, Geraint

Hawkins, Paul

Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

Hawksley, Warren

Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)

Hayhoe, Barney

Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Mudd, David

Heddle, John

Murphy, Christopher

Henderson, Barry

Myles, David

Heseltine, RtHonMichael

Neale, Gerrard

Hicks, Robert

Needham, Richard

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L,

Nelson, Anthony

Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

Neubert, Michael

Holland, Philip(Carlton)

Newton, Tony

Hooson, Tom

Normanton, Tom

Hordern, Peter

Nott, Rt Hon John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Onslow, Cranley

Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Osborn, John

Hunt, David(Wirral)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Hurd, HonDouglas

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

Parris, Matthew

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Patten, Christopher(Bath)

Jessel, Toby

Pattie, Geoffrey

JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

Pawsey, James

Jopling, RtHonMichael

Percival, Sirlan

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pink, R.Bonner

Kaberry, SirDonald

Pollock, Alexander

Kellett-Bowman.MrsElaine

Porter, Barry

Kershaw, SirAnthony

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Kimball, SirMarcus

Prior, Rt Hon James

King, Rt Hon Tom

Proctor, K. Harvey

Kitson, SirTimothy

Pym, RtHon Francis

Knight, MrsJill

Raison, Timothy

Knox, David

Rathbone, Tim

Lamont, Norman

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Lang, Ian

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Langford-Holt, SirJohn

Renton, Tim

Latham, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Lawrence, Ivan

RhysWilliams.SirBrandon

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Ridley, HonNicholas

Lee, John

Ridsdale, SirJulian

LeMarchant, Spencer

Rifkind, Malcolm

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rippon, RtHon Geoffrey

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant& W'loo)

Rossi, Hugh

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Rost, Peter

Loveridge, John

Royle, Sir Anthony

Luce,Richard

Sainsbury, HonTimothy

Lyell, Nicholas

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

McCrindle, Robert

Scott, Nicholas

Macfarlane, Neil

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

MacGregor, John

Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Shelton, William(Streatham)

Macmillan, RtHonM.

Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Shepherd,Richard

McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

Shersby, Michael

McQuarrie, Albert

Silvester, Fred

Madel, David

Sims, Roger

Major, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

943

Smith, Dudley

Vaughan, DrGerard

Speed, Keith

Viggers, Peter

Speller, Tony

Waddington, David

Spence, John

Wakeham, John

Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)

Waldegrave, HonWilliam

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

Sproat, lain

Walker, B.(Perth)

Squire, Robin

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Stainton, Keith

Wall, SirPatrick

Stanbrook, lvor

Waller, Gary

Stanley, John

Walters, Dennis

Steen, Anthony

Ward, John

Stevens, Martin

Warren, Kenneth

Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

Watson, John

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Wells, Bowen

Stokes, John

Wells, John(Maidstone)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wheeler, John

Tapsell, Peter

Whitelaw, RtHonWilliam

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Whitney, Raymond

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wickenden, Keith

Temple-Morris,Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Wilkinson, John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Thompson, Donald

Winterton, Nicholas

Thorne, Neil (llford South)

Wolfson, Mark

Thornton, Malcolm

Young, SirGeorge(Acton)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Trippier, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Trotter, Neville

Mr. Anthony Berry and

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Mr. Carol Mather.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Davidson, Arthur

Adams, Allen

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Allaun, Frank

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Alton, David

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Anderson, Donald

Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Deakins, Eric

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Ashton, Joe

Dewar, Donald

Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

Dixon, Donald

Bagier, GordonA.T.

Dobson, Frank

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Dormand, Jack

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Douglas, Dick

Beith, A.J.

Douglas-Mann,Bruce

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dubs,Alfred

Bennett.Andrew(St'kp'tN)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bidwell.Sydney

Dunnett.Jack

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Bottomley,RtHonA.(M'b'ro

Eadie.Alex

Bradley,Tom

Eastham.Ken

Brocklebank-Fowler.C.

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're)

Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

Ellis,Tom (Wrexham)

Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

English,Michael

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Buchan,Norman

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Callaghan, RtHonJ.

Evans, John (Newton)

Callaghan,Jim(Midd't'n&P

Ewing,Harry

Campbell,Ian

Faulds,Andrew

Campbell-Savours.Dale

Field,Frank

Canavan,Dennis

Flannery, Martin

Cant, R. B.

Fletcher, L. R. (llkeston)

Carmichael.Neil

Fletcher.Ted (Darlington)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Cartwright.John

Ford, Ben

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Forrester.John

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

Foster, Derek

Cohen,Stanley

Foulkes.George

Coleman, Donald

Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Freeson.Rt Hon Reginald

Cook, Robin F.

Freud.Clement

Cowans, Harry

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Crawshaw.Richard

George,Bruce

Crowther.Stan

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Cryer.Bob

Ginsburg, David

Cunningham, G.(lslington S)

Golding.John

Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)

Graham, Ted

944

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Orme, RtHon Stanley

Grant, John (IslingtonC)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

Palmer, Arthur

Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife)

Park, George

Hardy, Peter

Parker.John

Harrison, RtHon Walter

Parry.Robert

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Pavitt, Laurie

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pendry.Tom

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Penhaligon, David

Heffer, EricS.

Powell.Raymond(Ogmore)

Hogg, N.(EDunb't'nshire)

Price, C.(Lewisham W)

HomeRobertson.John

Race, Reg

Homewood.William

Radice,Giles

Hooley.Frank

Rees, Rt Hon M(Leeds S)

Howell, RtHon D.

Richardson,Jo

Howells.Geraint

Roberts.Albert(Normanton)

Hoyle,Douglas

Roberts,Allan(Bootle)

Huckfield.Les

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Hughes.Mark(Durham)

Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Rooker.J.W.

Janner.HonGreville

Roper.John

Jay, RtHon Douglas

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Ryman.John

Johnson, Walter (DerbyS)

Sandelson, Neville

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Sever, John

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Sheerman,Barry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sheldon, RtHon R.

Kerr, Russell

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Short, Mrs Renée

Kinnock.Neil

Silkin, RtHon J. (Deptford)

Lambie.David

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Lamborn,Harry

Silverman,Julius

Lamond,James

Skinner.Dennis

Leadbitter.Ted

Snape, Peter

Leighton,Ronald

Soley.Clive

Lestor, Miss Joan

Spearing,Nigel

Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

Spriggs, Leslie

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stallard, A. W.

Litherland, Robert

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lofthouse,Geoffrey

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Lyon,Alexander(York

Stoddart,David

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Stott, Roger

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Strang,Gavin

McCartney,Hugh

Summerskill, HonDrShirley

McDonald,DrOonagh

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

McElhone,Frank

Thomas, DrR, (Carmarthen)

McGuire,Michael(Ince)

Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

McKay,Allen(Penistone)

Tilley.John

McKelvey.William

Tinn,James

MacKenzie.RtHonGregor

Torney.Tom

McNally,Thomas

Urwin.RtHonTom

McNamara.Kevin

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

McTaggart, Robert

Wainwright, E.(DearneV)

McWilliamJohn

Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

Marks,Kenneth

Watkins, David

Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)

Weetch, Ken

Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)

Wellbeloved,James

Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

Welsh,Michael

Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)

White, Frank R.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

White, J.(G'gow Pollok)

Maxton.John

Whitehead, Phillip

Maynard, Miss Joan

Whitlock.William

Meacher,Michael

Wigley.Dafydd

Mellish, RtHon Robert

Willey, RtHon Frederick

Mikardo.lan

Williams, RtHon A.(S'sea W)

Millan, RtHon Bruce

Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

Miller, Dr M.S. (EKilbride)

Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)

Wilson, William (C'trySE)

Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

Winnick, David

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Woodall.Alec

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Woolmer.Kenneth

Morton,George

Wright.Sheila

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Young, David (Bolton E)

Mu Hey, Rt Hon Frederick

Newens, Stanley

Tellers for the Noes:

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and

O'Neill,Martin

Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Douglas Jay, Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. Alfred Dubs,Mr. Frank Dobs on and Mr. Thomas Cox.
TRANSPORT (LONDON) ACT 1969 (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Douglas Jay accordingly presented a Bill to clarify the meaning of the Transport (London) Act 1969 by providing for the Greater London Council power to makegrants towards the current expenses of the London Transport Executive where such grants appear to the Council to be required to provide or secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as best meet the needs for the time being of Greater London; to provide that such grants shall be treated as revenue of the Executive; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

Orders of the Day

  Transport Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.55 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Major transport legislation tends to touch on a wide range of issues and to cover many aspects of our lives. That follows, because transport activities touch on many people's lives. The Bill is no exception to that pattern.
  The first two parts of the Bill continue our strategy of reducing the role of the State in the transport sector wherever there is no good reason for it to be there. It is a strategy to which we have continued to give high priority from the day that we came into office and with which we intend to press ahead. We do so for the most practical and common sense of reasons—namely, the objective of introducing greater efficiency into our transport operations, more opportunities for expansion and development, a higher quality of service and a more flexible response to the needs of the user and the customer. I believe that that is a sensible and common sense approach.
  Part I provides for the opening up of another transport industry—in this case the National Bus Company—to private capital. The Transport Acts of 1980 and 1981 both included measures with a similar objective for other industries: the National Freight Corporation, the British Transport Docks Board and subsidiaries of the British Railways Board. The Bill takes the process a stage further.
  In our view, there is a clear role for the private sector to play in the NBC's coach operations and the improvement of passenger facilities. The potential advantages of allowing it to do so are immense. To harness the resources of the private sector will open up opportunities for development and expansion that are at present just not possible within the constraints of the public sector, with benefits to both the travelling public and to those who work in the industry. I hope that the provisions will therefore be welcome throughout the House.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the admirable speech on this matter that my hon. and learned Friend made. Will my right hon. Friend in particular say a word about unlocking the development potential of town centre bus depots, which with private investment can be of great value and without it are a dead loss?
  Mr. Howell: The congratulations to my hon. and learned Friend are certainly well deserved. When I expand on all the parts of the Bill I shall say a little more about the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
  Part II is also concerned with extending the role of the private sector in transport. Here we are dealing not with one of the transport industries but with one of the present functions of the Department of Transport itself—namely, the routine service of testing of heavy goods and public service vehicles. The Government attach vital importance to this service in maintaining proper standards of safety in
  866
  freight and passenger vehicle operation. We are well aware, too, of the high reputation which the present system has long enjoyed.
  We have, of course, thought very carefully about the worries that were first expressed when this idea was mooted a year or so ago. I am very glad that the haulage industry itself is no longer opposed but is ready to work with the Government to make the new scheme a success, because we see no reason whatsoever why the function need be carried out by civil servants in my Department when it could be done just as well by the private sector. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that transfer to the private sector will bring positive benefits to the testing system in terms of an even more efficient operation and a more flexible service to its users. I shall return to that in more detail in a moment.
  Part III, which improves and extends the fixed penalty system, is also in its way concerned with efficiency, but in this case the efficiency of our procedures for dealing with road traffic offences. The changes that we propose represent a further step in the review of the traffic laws promised when the Government took office. They are designed to reduce the burden of road traffic offences imposed on the police and the courts so that they are able to devote more time to dealing with more serious offences. The changes will also improve the enforcement of fixed penalties, which at present are too often ignored by offenders, leading to widespread illegal parking, with all the familiar problems that that causes, and bringing the system as a whole into disrepute.
  I turn now to the Bill's provisions in more detail.
  Part I makes provision for the introduction of private capital into the National Bus Company. In doing so it gives further expression to the view of the Government that wherever there are areas of the public sector that could benefit from closer association with private sector energies the obstacles to that association should be removed.
  Where the NBC is concerned we have two particular openings in mind. The first of these is the scope that exists for further development of the company's coaching and holiday business. The second is the opportunity for the NBC to co-operate with the private sector in making the best use of its very considerable property assets and, in particular, to improve passenger facilities for the travelling public—the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) raised a moment ago.
  Taking the coaching and holiday businesses first, there is no doubt that as far as express coaching services are concerned the NBC, like its competitors in the private sector, benefited greatly from the Transport Act 1980, which removed the licensing restrictions on those services. The results of this new freedom have been an unprecedented increase in the demand for coach travel, wider choice for the traveller and substantially lower fares on many routes.
  I do not see how anyone could object to those developments. It is almost comical to look back and read the remarks of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), among others, about the irreparable damage that would flow from the 1980 Act and compare it with what has happened, because in 1981 National Express carried 73 per cent. more passengers than in 1980 and raised its financial contribution to the overall results of the NBC by no less then 50 per cent. That is a considerable achievement, for which both the management and the work force deserve full credit.

  867
  We believe that a partnership with private capital will make it possible to improve on those results still further to the advantage of the NBC itself, its employees and its customers. It is our intention that the NBC should retain a significant share in this business, and the Bill provides for the establishment of an employee shareholding scheme, which means that the work force will itself have a real stake in the expansion of the coach market.
  Similar opportunities exist in the case of National Holidays, the marketing title of NBC's coach holiday business. It is a much smaller concern than National Express, but it is also a straightforward commercial activity which can only benefit from an association with the private sector.
  The powers included in the Bill are designed to provide the opportunity for that private sector involvement. It will not be possible to achieve that objective overnight because each of them represents a coherent business, but they are not companies as such and do not, therefore, at the moment constitute fully identifiable units with proven track records which, as they stand, could provide the basis for the sale of shares.
  I have asked the NBC to let me have proposals for accounting for National Express and National Holdays, either jointly or separately, in distinct company accounts. I have asked the NCB to do this from the earliest possible date, and certainly before the end of 1982. I also propose shortly to set a financial target for both businesses, which will sustain the momentum towards further improvement on what are already promising results.
  I shall now go into a little more detail on the property aspect. The National Bus Company and its subsidiaries own property assets with a book value of more than 100 million. The actual sites vary from quite small rural garages and depots to substantial town centre bus and coach stations. Collectively those properties obviously have great potential, but the difficulty has been that the company has been unable to finance major development within the resources that can be made available from public funds. As a result, there are sites that are under-utilised, and in many places the facilities that the company is able to offer to the travelling public are far less attractive and less extensive than we would wish.
  We believe that there is also an opportunity for using private capital to unlock the potential of NBC's property assets and to enable the company to offer much more attractive facilities to the travelling public. The NBC chairman has made it clear that he would welcome the involvement of the private sector in that process.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: So that we can have this clarified at the beginning of the debate, am I correct in understanding that the Bill will allow the National Bus Company to sell off some of its regional bus operations, such as Cumberland Motor Services in my part of West Cumbria, on which the right hon. Gentleman will remember the interventions of a few years ago? If that is the case, what will happen to the arrangements for cross-subsidisation, which have nothing to do with privatisation and which the privateers could well say could no longer be afforded? Will the right hon. Gentleman reply directly to that, because it is at the heart of the problem?
  Mr. Howell: Our plans are concerned with National Holidays and National Express and the property areas that
  868
  I have been mentioning, but it is correct to say that the legislation covers powers for sales throughout the whole of the NBC.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about the cross-subsidisation?
  Mr. Howell: I am at the moment describing the way in which our plans are intended to develop in the light of the powers that are sought in the Bill. We have no plans at the moment in relation to the areas that the hon. Gentleman is discussing. That is a different issue, which I recognise is an important and contentious one, but it is not one that arises on the plans that I am discussing for the Bill at the moment.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howell: No. I have made it clear that we are discussing these plans. I have answered the hon. Gentleman extremely clearly and said that our plans are concerned with National Holidays, National Express and the property area. We have no plans in the areas that he is discussing, although the Bill gives powers that would cover all those areas. I hope that that is as clear as it could possibly be to the hon. Gentleman.
  The NBC chairman has said that he would welcome the involvement of private sector capital in this process and I have agreed with him that the company will take immediate steps to strengthen its capacity for bringing forward property development schemes in conjunction with the private sector so as to be in the best possible position to make use of the powers conferred by the Bill.
  Part II provides for responsibility for the annual testing of lorries and buses to be removed from the Department of Transport.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what he is talking about is, as it were, joint ventures between the NBC and private property developers? Is it possible, therefore, that the Bill contains powers for the NBC to contribute its property with capital from the private developers to a separate company and make a separate development? Above all, would that company then be able to raise money without its affecting the public sector borrowing requirement?
  Mr. Howell: Yes, the powers are there to sell shares in a subsidiary and for it to pass into the private sector. Of course, we hope that the NBC will retain a substantial shareholding, but the companies will pass into the private sector and there will be privatisation.
  The clauses in Part II provide the framework for a system under which an approved testing authority will employ authorised inspectors to carry out the work of annual testing and some related functions that the Bill describes.
  I know that during the past 10 years or so the HGV testing system has earned a reputation in the road transport industry for its high standards and impartiality. It deserves that reputation, but I believe that the system can be improved, and that is what those clauses aim to do. They are about making a good system better.
  Until now the annual testing of HGVs and PSVs has been carried out as part of the wider vehicle safety work of my Department. The system may have had the virtues of the Civil Service and the Department, but it has also suffered from the inescapable limitations of Whitehall's

  869
  departmental control. That has restricted the development of the services offered to vehicle operators. It is not easy, with the best will, for the Civil Service to experiment with different opening hours—for example offering tests outside normal working hours, at weekends or late in the evening when operators require services that minimise their costs. The system is geared to a uniform national pattern of working, with a minimum of local flexibility to respond to particular demands.
  It is also true to say that some of our assets in the testing system are probably being under-used. There may be some spare land in the system and some scope for additional facilities on a number of sites. I want to see all those possibilities explored, with the clear aim of benefiting the users of the testing service.
  The Bill does not lay down how the new private sector system should be organised. One possibility is that the whole testing network should be transferred as a single unit to one authoritative body in the private sector. The name of Lloyd's Register of Shipping has been mentioned as a body that could combine the necessary authority and commitment to high safety standards with a tradition of practical service to industry. That possibility is still under discussion.
  An alternative approach would be to seek to involve several private sector companies in testing. If I take that approach, I shall begin by setting up a company, wholly owned by the Government, that would take over testing initially and prepare for the second stage of development of the system. I shall be holding further consultations with the road transport industry before reaching a decision on the organisation of the new private sector scheme.
  Whatever course I take in making use of the powers contained in the clauses, I can promise the House that my emphasis will always be on maintaining the highest possible safety standards, combined with quality of service to the industry. The essential controls will remain with my Department. I shall still lay down the standards that the testing stations must meet, and it will be my job also to monitor and supervise the new arrangements. I shall ensure that adequate resources are devoted to this very important work.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State tell us in some detail how he intends to police the system when it passes to private enterprise?
  Mr. Howell: The facilities for supervision exist. We are not talking about a vast network—it includes 91 stations—and supervision can be organised on lines that involve no great additional call on manpower. We will ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained throughout the system. There is no great problem on that front. I shall ensure that adequate resources are devoted to that important work.
  In terms of service to the industry, I shall of course ensure that the present nationwide coverage provided by the network of test stations is fully maintained. That is important. I shall also be looking for developments that can reduce the length of time that vehicles spend out of service, and so cut the real costs of testing to the industry. That is where costs arise.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State give the House an estimate of the cost to his Department of providing a monitoring service? Civil servants will still be employed to ensure that the testing
  870
  stations—especially if they are split—maintain the high standards that have been set. Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned that many of the lorries on the road should not be operating and that the new system may make that position worse?
  Mr. Howell: The system will maintain the standards and, if anything, improve them. Many hundreds fewer civil servants will be required for monitoring and supervisory duties. In evidence, the Department used the word "slight". Small numbers will be involved in the monitoring required for a coherent system with 91 stations.
  Mr. Douglas Jay(Battersea, North) rose——
  Mr. Howell: I have given way four or five times, and I do not wish to detain the House. The issue involves many complexities and I believe that the House wishes to debate the detail of this important Bill.
  The safeguards that exist now against the dangers of faults in buses and lorries will in no way be reduced. On the contrary, before handing over any of that work I shall want an absolute assurance that safety standards will at the very least be maintained, and if possible improved. If there were doubts about the competence or the standards of any company that came forward, that bid would be refused. Far from weakening present controls on safety, my aim is to harness the resources and energy of the private sector to improve and strengthen the system. Nothing in the proposals in any way interferes with the enforcement activities of the Department, which are of vital and growing importance, and which it is anyway my intention to develop and strengthen.
  I come now to a complex and important area of the Bill—the proposals in Part III dealing with the fixed penalty system. They are based on the recommendations of the review body set up to look at ways of simplifying our road traffic laws. That working party included representatives of the police and the courts—the people who have to operate the system—so it is right to assume that the proposals have a wealth of relevant experience behind them.
  The proposals fall into two parts. First, they extend the fixed penalty system, at present largely confined to parking offences. Our aim here is to relieve some of the burden that road traffic offences impose on the police and courts and to free court time for more serious offences. There are more than 1.8 million successful prosecutions a year for road traffic offences. Among those are a substantial number whose less serious nature lends itself to the fixed penalty system. If those are dealt with by way of fixed penalty, up to 600,000 cases a year could be taken out of the courts.
  The offences that we are proposing to bring into the extended system include speeding and various vehicle defect offences, as well as failing to comply with traffic directions. We are, therefore, including endorsable offences for the first time.
  By extending the system we are providing a simpler alternative for dealing with those offences—by removing the need for a court hearing, unless the person who is given a ticket asks for one. The right of an offender to contest the charge in court is not affected in any way by what we are proposing. However, those who wish to acknowledge liability for the offence may settle the matter by paying a fixed penalty rather than go through the court process.
  Mr. Gary Waller: My right hon. Friend said that the great advantage of the proposals was that someone who wished to acknowledge responsibility could avoid going to court. Is it not true that the person can do so only if he happens to be carrying his driving licence? I understand that the proposals are regarded as an incentive for people to carry their driving licences. Is that not manifestly unfair on those who, through no fault of their own, cannot carry their licences—especially those who have sent them to Swansea, perhaps for correction, and may have to wait for two months before they are returned?
  Mr. Howell: The issue requires considerable attention. We have sought to speed up and overcome the difficulties, particularly the fall-out from last year's Civil Service dispute.
  My hon. Friend is right. If an alleged offender wishes to pay a fixed penalty he will be asked to produce his driving licence, although he will not be obliged—I emphasise this—to show it if he does not wish to. The difficulty that my hon. Friend has in mind is not as sharp as he believes. However, my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will go into more detail when he winds up. If there is confusion in my hon. Friend's mind, I shall see that it is removed by later remarks.
  Those who wish to acknowledge liability for the offence may settle the matter by paying a fixed penalty rather than by going through the court process. I emphasise that we are not proposing to have on-the-spot fines. This will simply be an extension of the present ticket system, where the fine is paid subsequently.
  Because endorsable offences will become part of the fixed penalty system, procedures have been designed to fit in with the existing endorsement and disqualification machinery. There is no question of devaluing the seriousness of an endorsable offence. The licence will still be endorsed, and its more serious nature is reflected in the higher penalty of £20. The penalty will be £10 for non-endorsable offences in line with the increase that we are proposing for the existing parking ticket, which will shortly be raised from £6.
  The other aim of our proposals is to improve the enforcement of fixed penalties. I am sure that hon. Members are aware of the problems that illegal parking can cause, particularly in London. Parking restrictions are too often ignored, because motorists believe that if they get a parking ticket it is unlikely to be enforced.
  Over 900,000 fixed penalty notices annually are ineffective, largely because motorists ignore them and the time limit for proceedings to be brought expires. The courts in London are stretched to capacity and the police have insufficient resources to devote to the necessary follow-up work.
  We are proposing changes to make the fixed penalty enforcement more effective. This will not only be fairer to motorists who obey the parking laws, but the increased deterrent to illegal parking will be a substantial step towards relieving the serious traffic congestion that it can cause in cities.
  We agree with the working party that the best way to deal with evasion is to require a person issued with a ticket to take positive action if he wishes to contest liability for the offence. We therefore propose that in the absence of a response to the notices issued—either by payment of the penalty or a request for a hearing—the penalty will
  872
  automatically be treated as if it were a fine imposed on conviction. It will be enforced by the courts, together with an amount to cover expenses, without the need for a court hearing.
  That is a fairly fundamental change. We recognise that there may be misgivings about the reliance on the presumption that the motorist has accepted liability for the offence if he does not take the opportunity to contest the charge. A safeguard has therefore been built into the system in the Bill which would allow mistakes or disputes about knowledge of the process to be resolved. I am anxious that the full implications of the change should be made absolutely clear in the House, and my hon. and learned Friend will deal with the provisions of that part of the Bill in more detail.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My right hon. Friend talks about enforcement. It will be within his knowledge that at the moment many hundreds of thousands of fines for criminal and other offences are not being paid. As my right hon. Friend will be opening the field with a large number of fixed penalties in addition, will he consider whether he should include a right, such as the attachment of earnings, to recover such fines?
  Mr. Howell: I carefully note my hon. and learned Friend's point. I shall reflect on it. He has considerable experience of this matter.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am not trying to score a point, but Department of Transport tests on private cars are at present an aspect of police surveillance when speeding offences are committed and the police are considering proceedings. Will the necessity to prove the roadworthiness of a car remain?
  Mr. Howell: It would not be easy for a policeman to judge the roadworthiness of a car when giving a fixed penalty ticket. There are obvious difficulties.
  Fixed penalty fines are bound to be limited to alleged offences that arise, in the case of parking offences, through a traffic warden issuing a ticket, or, in the case of offences when a vehicle is moving, a police constable issuing a ticket. A roadworthiness offence would be more difficult to establish, so would not lend itself to a fixed penalty fine, unless the defect was obvious. I shall examine the point. If I am giving the hon. Gentleman wrong information, I shall return to the matter.
  Let me deal finally with some of the miscellaneous provisions that make up part IV. Clause 45, together with schedule 4, is intended to rectify an anomaly that has prevented licensing authorities from taking environmental factors into account in considering applications for goods vehicle operating centres. This is in line with the recommendations of two important committees of inquiry, one under Professor Foster in 1978 and the other under Sir Arthur Armitage in 1980, and with the undertaking in the Government's recent White Paper "Lorries, People and the Environment".
  This problem has in fact been tackled previously by the Road Traffic Act 1974, which amended the Transport Act 1968 to permit licensing authorities to assess the suitability of operating centres for heavy goods vehicles. The intention was to permit licensing authorities to assess environmental matters. However, a ruling by the transport tribunal in 1975 was interpreted as putting such

  873
  considerations beyond the powers of licensing authorities in decisions on goods vehicle operating centres. A further measure is therefore necessary to resolve the uncertainty.
  The aim of the new legislation is to introduce a more logical definition of an operating centre in relation to use and to specify those environmental conditions which licensing authorities may impose on a licence. It will also allow people who may be affected by an operating centre to make their views known to a licensing authority and empower it to take these views into account when issuing a licence.
  Mr. Matthew Parris: Does the clause on goods centres apply to licences issued to new goods centres, or does it apply retrospectively to existing goods vehicle centres?
  Mr. Howell: It will apply to new applications.
  Clause 46 amends the definition of restricted road—that is one which is, by virtue of street lighting, subject to a speed limit of 30 mph—by removing the distinction currently made between unclassified roads and classified or trunk roads. Although perhaps a little complex in appearance, it is in fact a simplification of the present provisions. It will leave unchanged existing speed limits as indicated on individual roads. It is an enforcement clause.
  Clause 48 enables the Secretary of State to authorise or direct harbour authorities to act in the interests of national defence. Although they have an excellent record of voluntary co-operation in this field, it is important to ensure that the vital contribution made by harbour authorities to defence preparations at a time of international tension is not hampered by such obstacles as a limitation in an authority's local legislation or by contractual obligations to normal port users.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it intended to use the legislation only at times of national crisis—just before or during war—or as a civil contingency?
  Mr. Howell: I envisage the former. The provision is for a national emergency or security situation.
  As I said at the outset, the Bill covers a lot of ground, as transport legislation tends to do, but it deserves the full support of those who work in the industry, its customers and, indeed, everyone who wishes to see a high quality of transport operation and believes in putting the consumer first. In the case of the fixed penalty provisions, on which I am afraid I had to take time, the Bill will mean a radical improvement in the penal system for traffic offences and will go a long way to free police and court resources to tackle serious crime. It is a thoroughly worthwhile measure and I commend it to the House.
  4.32 pm
  Mr. Albert Booth: A pattern is discernible in the legislation pouring forth from the Department of Transport. The Department produces minor Bills to deal with crises which are often of its own creation and prepares a major Bill each year. The major Bills have three essential ingredients. The first is denationalisation or public asset stripping. The second is to get rid of a public body, some public control or the planning or maintenance of standards. The third is to extend road traffic law, often in a way which is misplaced. This being the third year of the Government, the Bill is the third such measure. To use
  874
  a sporting analogy, I hope that the Government do not believe that, having been successful three times——if they are—they can continue in that way.
  Part I of the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to force the National Bus Company to sell public assets into private ownership. As the Secretary of State conceded, it is not limited to coaching or holiday operations. He does not defend the wider powers. He merely says that the Government's first concern is with the coaching and holiday operations. That fact is important. The proposal serves the Government's narrow and doctrinate aims and damages passenger services and public funds. If the Government give high priority to denationalisating transport services, they should have said so in their manifesto. They gave only one area of public ownership of transport services which would be subject to such an approach—the National Freight Corporation. The manifesto did not mention selling British Rail subsidiaries or National Bus Company assets.
  The 1980 Act provided for the deregulation of express services, but the then Secretary of State said that he expected to see a massive increase in private express services. The Bill was put forward in anticipation that entrepreneurs in express services would run the National Bus Company off the road; they would use the new legal freedom to run unlicensed express services. That is what the Secretary of State said. The expansion at the expense of the National Bus Company has not happened. Instead, the National Bus Company has operated under the Act and expanded its express coach operations by 50 per cent. We predicted the great disaster of the Act. The expansion of that small area of its operations has been accompanied by a major collapse in its much larger stage carriage operations.
  Mr. Peter Fry: Has not the success of the coach operations, through cross-subsidisation, enabled many bus services to be retained that might otherwise have disappeared, particularly in rural areas?
  Mr. Booth: In so far as the operation has been successful, it permits a desirable degree of cross-subsidisation of rural and off-peak urban services. That is a good reason to defeat the Bill and to prevent the operations from being sold. If they are sold it will be impossible for the National Bus Company to sustain rural services. That is an important point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Government are taking their revenge on the National Bus Company for taking over the rote that they hoped the private sector would have.
  The Government appear to believe that it is possible to extract the profitable express services from the company's other businesses—that they can be isolated and put into a totally private or a mixed private and public arrangement. That shows a total misunderstanding of the way in which the company operates. Its ability successfully to operate under the 1980 Act and to expand its coaching services is due entirely to the integrated nature of its services. It did not have to set up new depots, booking offices and maintenance and repair facilities to expand the express operation, so it could enter the field swiftly and effectively.
  The integrated service has a dual purpose. It is, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) pointed out, enabling money to be earned to cross-subsidise operations,

  875
  and it is sustaining the fabric of the depot and network as well. What the Government are proposing threatens irreparable damage to that network.
  Mr. Parris: If the national network is being sustained in that way, why did the right hon. Gentleman not welcome the move when it was introduced in 1980?
  Mr. Booth: I was opposed to the measure in 1980 because the extent to which the express coaching can make a contribution to other operations is so small that it would not, and could not, have saved the other NBC activities from the decline which flows from the Government policies.
  After all, only about 7 or 8 per cent. of NBC's operations are in coaching. One cannot expect NBC to earn enough profit from that percentage to sustain a large part of the remaing 92 per cent. or 93 per cent. of its operation. That is why I did not believe then, and I do not believe now on the evidence before us, that merely leaving the NBC as it is, without regard to the transport supplementary grant, the effect of de-licensing on other areas and the removal of the safeguards and protections that existed before the 1980 Act, will prevent a massive decline.
  I have visited a number of county areas in the past year, only to find planned declines in their bus service networks, particularly in the rural areas, of up to 20 per cent. I believe that the NBC's evidence to the Select Committee on Transport shows that it estimates a decline of some 60 million service miles in its total services under the current operational framework.
  The efficiency of the whole of the National Bus Company operation depends to a great degree on the integration of the various types of service that it runs. Its ability to be flexible in its use of staff, depots and booking facilities largely contributes to that efficiency. Even if there were some way of extracting from NBC a proportion of its staff, coaches and depots and handing them over to someone else to operate, it would still not operate efficiently. It would involve an increase in the cost of operation.
  The implication for the relief to the transport supplementary grant is significant. I do not deny the point of the intervention, although it is the case, and I still contend it, that even if we leave the NBC unchanged, the great contraction will go on. The damage has been done. There is no doubt that the contraction will go on faster if this hiving off takes place. The profits of the holiday and coaching services provide 10 to 12 per cent. of the subsidisation of the rural operations. The hiving off of the holiday and coaching services can only hasten the already serious decline.
  I turn to part II of the Bill. The Government's decision to press on with the proposal to sell commercial vehicle test stations to the private sector shows how fanatically devoted they are to the destruction of the public sector. They seem to believe that if they can find a measure which will, at one and the same time, cut the Civil Service and enable somebody else to make a profit out of a service which can be sold, that alone, without respect to any other considerations, must be a justification for the measure that they are putting forward.
  The Government have tried extremely hard—I give them full marks for trying—to persuade a lot of people that
  876
  this proposal may have some merit. All their efforts have failed, as far as I can see. The have not persuaded the own-account sector of road haulage or the hire and reward sector that they can get any better service from private stations. On the contrary, they have aroused great fears in the road haulage industry, as well as in the public service vehicle section, that the uniformly high standard of testing accomplished now by the test stations is at risk by what the Government are doing. They have aroused the understandable fear that they are playing politics with road safety. With the combined testing and repair facilities which the Government envisage going into private hands, there are serious risks of commercial malpractice affecting not only the high standards but the impartiality with which testing is undertaken for a whole range of owners.
  It is difficult to envisage how the manager of a combined testing and repair depot, faced with a possibility of making money on repair, could resist the switching of staff from testing to repair at times of considerable commercial pressure.
  Mr. Iain Mills: The right hon. Gentleman and I have sat on many Committees together. Would he comment on the many detailed, lengthy and genuine consultations between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and associations such as the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association representing those in the road haulage industry to achieve this legislation? Does he not also recognise that a brief sent to most hon. Members recognised that the Government have gone a long way towards satisfying most of their original doubts and disquiet?
  Mr. Booth: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I used shorthand when I said that I gave the Government full marks for trying. That was intended to convey that I acknowledge that the Government had considerable consultations with the people who are properly concerned and interested. I accept that it covers the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there also not a danger that, where a fleet operator has approached a private enterprise testing station, the former might be able to subject the testing station management to pressure by threatening to withdraw the balance of the fleet on subsequent occasions?
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Shocking.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It could happen; it may well be shocking. We are here to review legislation and dangers may arise. The Government should know before those dangers happen, as they will.
  Mr. Booth: I put it to my hon. Friend that whether that danger exists depends on the area of the country. If it is an area where there are test stations reasonably close together it is possible to threaten the withdrawal of one's trade from one station and to take it to another. However, there are places where population is thinly spread and there are enormous distances between test stations. In those places there may be the opposite threat—that if there is not co-operation between the operator and the test station the test station might make it difficult for that operator to get his testing done at the price and under the arrangements that he wants.
  There is thus a double threat involved, and what may come out if the legislation goes ahead is that what is

  877
  recognised now in the testing as producing a guarantee of the highest standards of roadworthiness might come to be regarded instead as the best certificate that money can buy. The quality and efficiency of stations can be put in jeopardy when there is a financial incentive to cut corners.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman ever was a transport Minister, although I know that he has had much experience in the Department of Employment. He will be aware that those of us who have served in the Department of Transport are conscious that vehicle testing of the vast majority of automobiles on our roads is already done in the private sector. If he or his hon. Friends have any evidence that there is venality in that area, I hope that he will give it, but surely there is no objection to the principle, because his Government also administered a system whereby road vehicles were tested in the private sector. I recognise that there are other dimensions, but why should there be a difference in principle in the case of goods vehicles?
  Mr. Booth: I have not served in the Department of Transport. 1 am not suggesting that there is a difference in principle. The difference of degree in the commercial considerations involved is enormous. If one operates a vehicle that costs £60,000 and takes it to a station that says that it can be passed only subject to about £2,000 of repair work, which means a loss of earning capacity, that might be regarded as a more serious consideration than not being able to use one's car for a week or two and having to hire another one, or use taxis or public transport. There is a difference of degree. I am not claiming that there is a difference of principle.
  There is no suggestion that the Government's proposal will lead to any saving of public funds. The test stations operating a uniform test fee across the country cover their costs or make a small profit. However, a break-up of the network is threatened. I am not certain that the Government will succeed in finding one private organisation that will take over all the test stations. When the Government come to a decision on whether to sell them off in blocks or lots, they must take into account the fact that no one will rush forward wanting to take over a test station that can be used only two or three days a week.
  Even if the Government can arrange the stations in job lots so that someone has to take over what is now an unprofitable station in order to get hold of profitable ones, how will the Government be able to enforce the standards of the unprofitable one? If they send an inspector and find that the station is not operating properly, can they close it down or will they say that they will run it themselves? They will not be able to sell it to anyone else. The problems of enforcement of standards are enormous. Another inspectorate, meaning more civil servants, will need to be set up to check what the private operators of the stations are doing.
  Therefore. the Government should think again. I do not say that on the basis of only my judgment or talks that I have had with people, but I have been influenced in my view by the work of the Select Committee on Transport. It thoroughly examined the matter. The Government cannot completely reject its report without being subject to considerable criticism during the passage of the Bill.
  My approach to fixed penalties is different from my approach to other parts of the Bill. I realise that there is a serious problem in the administration of justice, the
  878
  workload of the courts and our ability to sustain the principles of a system of justice on which we pride ourselves. However, I always hesitate when I see proposals that smack of a compromise between justice and administrative convenience. I am not saying that one does not have to weigh one against the other at times., but whenever such a proposition is made, we should pause and consider carefully.
  I also realise that under our court system there is no automatic guarantee of all the tests, checks and safeguards of justice that we would want. Given the large number of traffic offences that the courts must consider, there may be some rubber stamp justice, even in our courts.
  The Bill carries further an idea that the House approved only in respect of parking fine fixed penalties. It takes beyond anything that we have envisaged previously the position of the policeman alleging the offence. His decision to allege or report an offence comes near to a decision that a prosecution will be made if there is no response from the person against whom the crime is alleged.
  I should like to ask the Under-Secretary a straight question. I refer to English law. I realise that in Scottish law there is a difference in that there is the safeguard of the procurator fiscal issuing the notice. Who decides whether a charge or a summons will be made? Will the form of notice handed out by the policeman make it clear that he is merely reporting or alleging an offence, so that any decision about liability is reserved? That is of particular importance in commercial matters where there is a combined charge, or a charge laid against an owner as well as the driver. If the driver accepts liability, is the owner also guilty of an offence?
  I should also like to ask why the Bill has been drafted in such a way as to require the licence to be shown to the constable when he issues the notice. If the police officer has the right to examine the licence fully before deciding whether to issue a notice, he will see the record of previous convictions—for example, endorsements. I have always understood that it was one of the principles of our system of justice that the body or person who was to decide whether there had been an offence or whether someone had been guilty of an offence should not be influenced by any consideration of previous decisions.
  Under our court system we would not dream of telling a jury of previous convictions before it was asked to decide whether the person was guilty. Those convictions would be revealed only when guilt had been established and when judgment was to be made about the seriousness of the penalty. Under the Bill it appears that a person against whom an offence is to be alleged will be subject to a decision to allege that offence after his licence has been examined, which could show that other convictions had taken place.
  It is implied that there are two systems of justice in the Bill—one for those who happen to have their driving licence when it is alleged that they have committed an offence and one for those who do not. That raises some objections to the Bill.
  I put it to the House for consideration, without having made up my mind, that it might have been simpler if all the offences in the schedule for the fixed penalty system did not carry points towards disqualification from holding a driving licence. In any case, it must be almost impossible to operate a system of variable points towards driving licence disqualification on the basis of the fixed penalty

  879
  system. If there was merit in our decision on the last Bill—I believe that there was—to have a variable points attachment to licences towards disqualification, that is at risk because of what is proposed.
  These are difficult matters of judgment that we must debate with care. They are not susceptible to party political analysis. We should not necessarily approach them in that way. It is therefore the more regrettable that this part of the Bill is contained in a measure which has, in its first two parts, the basis of major party political controversy. It is on the basis of those two parts, which I believe are wrong in judgment and principle, and which are harmful to passenger and road freight transport, that I call upon the House to refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  5.10 pm
  Sir David Price(Eastleigh): My concern is with part II of the Bill, relating to the Government's proposal to transfer heavy goods vehicle and public service testing stations to the private sector. I shall, therefore, restrict my remarks to that part of the Bill.
  I took the chair at all the sittings of our Select Committee on Transport last year when we studied the Government's proposals, which were then in the form of a discussion paper, to sell off these important testing stations. Our report was published in July, and I have it here. I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Members have read it. I shall not press that question too far, because I want to retain the good will of the House. I merely say that it is an extremely good report and is well worth studying.
  However, it was psychic of Her Majesty's Stationery Office to have printed half the report upside down. In my view, that is how the Government have reacted to our recommendations. Our principal conclusion was:
  "we do not"—
  I repeat "not"—
  "consider that the Government has yet justified its contention that private operators (still to be identified) would carry out the annual testing of commercial vehicles better than the current Department of Transport testing stations."
  The Government, following the lead of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, clearly read our conclusions upside down, and decided that their proposal was fully justified, when in fact we had said exactly the reverse. Hence, I regard part II as an Alice through the Looking Glass provision, because it puts everything the wrong way round.
  As the House knows, I am an old-fashioned Tory, and I do not believe in changing things unless a good case can be made for changing them. I do not subscribe to the change-for-its-own-sake school of politics. I therefore ask the question, which I asked upstairs, "What, in this instance, is the positive case for change?" We received no evidence that the users of the testing stations were dissatisfied with the current services that they received or that they were too expensive.
  We could detect no enthusiasm for the Government's proposal to sell off the testing stations. The only person who, with his immense ebullience, argued the case was my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, who is a superb advocate. I am sure that he will forgive me for saying that I decided that if I ever found myself in the dock at the Old Bailey, I should immediately turn to him to defend me.
  880
  I quote from paragraph 77 of our report:
  "It is clear that after more than a year of discussions with the representatives of the vehicle operators, the Government have been unable of persuade them that the proposed changes would be beneficial. Although the Government has stated that firm safeguards would be built into the new system the operators' associations were unanimous in their evidence to us that the impartiality of the testing system would be put at risk, that commercial malpractices could occur, and that standards of vehicle safety might fall. The CPT also thought that the quality and efficiency of the services provided to their members might be put in jeopardy."
  That is pretty clear. I am not giving my opinion. That is the evidence that we received.
  Let us consider the matter in detail, and take the Road Haulage Association. Its views were equally clear. It said,on page 2 of the report:
  "The Government's faith in the concept of competitiveness and free enterprise is misplaced when it is applied to an activity in which competitive motives are entirely inappropriate. The function of a testing station is not to produce a commercial service in competition with other stations. Its function is merely to discharge objectively and impartially a responsibility for ensuring that the condition of heavy goods vehicles conforms to prescribed standards. That function cannot be reconciled, indeed, it is in sharp contrast with, such a commercial objective as providing customers with a service on a purely profit-seeking basis."
  The Freight Transport Association held the same sort of views. I shall quote briefly from page 29:
  "As a principle, we are very much in favour of the withdrawal of Government from functions which can satisfactorily be performed by private enterprise. We have therefore given our full support to successive proposals of the present Government to denationalise the National Freight Corporation, to hive off other parts of the nationalised transport industries, to withdraw from motorway service centres, etc. But we do not consider that HGV testing is in the same category. In many ways, it is the worst candidate for Government withdrawal because it is an area where the Government has a prime responsibility and duty in terms of ensuring public safety."
  That was pretty clear.
  The coach operators made an equally clear statement, which is on page 40 of the report:
  "This Council which represents all sectors of the bus and coach industry in Britain, unanimously deplores the decision of Government to transfer responsibility for carrying out statutory annual testing of Public Service Vehicles to commercial interests operating for profit. It believes strongly that the present system of PSV inspection by impartial and independent engineers employed by the Department of Transport should be retained in the interests of the safety of passengers and other road users and of accountability for exercising statutory responsibility in a consistent way".
  Why, in the face of the formidable evidence, do the Government persist in their desire to sell off these testing stations? I quote what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when he wrote in reply to our Select Committee. The document is available in the Library. He said:
  "there is no reason in principle why straighforward mechanical checks on the condition of vehicles should have to be done by civil servants".
  I must say that the use of the word "civil servants" there has a certain connotation. I should have preferred "public servants", because "civil servants" suggests of mandarins, and I can hardly imagine mandarins getting under vehicles and testing them. I shall not be naughty and ask my right hon. Friend how many mandarins have ever tested a vehicle.
  The phrase "straightforward mechanical checks" is a gross underestimation of what is involved. I shall quote from the memorandum of my hon. Friend's predecessor, following questions that were asked of my hon. and

  881
  learned Friend the Under-Secretary when he appeared before us in the Select Committee, which said, in regard to the heavy goods vehicle test:
  "The test covers 64 main items and is essentially road safety oriented".
  It said:
  "The test for lorries takes on average 40 minutes".
  When we come to the public service vehicle, it says that
  "the PSV test is fundamentally a check for safety purposes. No standard testing requirements or procedures are currently laid down. On average the test takes about an hour—longer than the HGV test because it is directed to the safety and comfort of passengers as well as the safe operation of the vehicle".
  I suggest that that makes it clear that more is involved in the testing of heavy goods vehicles than straightforward mechanical tests, as my right hon. Friend suggested. Indeed—this is the key point in my argument—more is involved in this work than in the majority of work of either a traffic warden or a weights and measures inspector. However, I have not heard it suggested that either of those somewhat similar public service functions should be sold to the private sector. So, why should the heavy goods vehicles and the public service vehicle testing functions be treated differently?
  Mr. Iain Mills: I recognise the work done by the Select Committee, but is my hon. Friend aware of the current views of the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association and other haulage organisations? Has he read the brief issued to Members of Parliament that implied that as a result of the excellent work done by that Select Committee and the pressure put on the Secretary of State for Transport, much has been done by the Government to meet the criticisms made when those organisations met the Select Committee?
  Sir David Price: I have read the brief, but I would put a rather different interpretation on it. The associations have accepted the inevitable and have made the best of a move that they do not basically support. No one, other than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, is in favour of the provision.
  The HGV and PSV inspectors along with the weights and measures inspectorate and traffic wardens have the common interface with the public that, if they fail a vehicle or a piece of equipment, or decide that a vehicle is parked in the wrong place, there are punitive consequences for the citizen. That police-like function distinguishes these public testing responsibilities from the commonality of the ordinary prudent and recommended testing which every fleet operator, and most private car owners, follow. I was not surprised to find that those of my constituents involved in road haulage and coach operations do not wish to see such police-like responsibilities passed to the private sector, which may well include a distrusted competitor.
  At the end of the day, the issue is not just mechanical testing, but demonstrable integrity. That same need for demonstrable integrity tells us not to hive off the duties of traffic wardens to a private security company, or those of the weights and measures inspectorate to weighing machine manufacturers. No road haulier likes to see his vehicles fail the annual heavy goods test. He will accept the judgment of public officials, but he will not willingly accept the judgment of his competitors.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As always, I am following my hon. Friend's argument carefully. However, he seems to
  882
  suggest that the private sector ought not to test those matters which could involve a penalty for the public. I see his argument but would he apply it, for example, to the aircraft industry? Would he insist that the only people to test the aeroplanes in which people travel, which are ultimately controlled by Government bodies, should be civil servants? That would be a wholly impracticable proposition.
  Sir David Price: As my hon. Friend knows, that is not a correct analogy. Type testing and approval are involved. The industry is also policed by a quango in the form of the Civil Aviation Authority.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Its members do not pin on overalls.
  Sir David Price: They may do if there is an accident. The accident side is run by the Civil Aviation Authority.
  When there is so much concern, both in the House and outside, about how to live with the lorry, it is especially important that the public should retain the fullest confidence in the thoroughness, integrity and impartiality of our national system of lorry testing. I thought that my hon. Friend was going to ask me how I squared that view with the ordinary MOT testing of domestic motor cars. I do not wish to detain the House and, as I have not been asked that question, I shall not answer it. However, the point is admirably summarised in our report.
  I conclude, as did the Select Committee, that these are inappropriate responsibilities to sell off to the private sector. There is not only no demonstrable public benefit in so doing, but there is a risk of demonstrable public harm. I shall have no hesitation in opposing part IF of the Bill throughout its passage in the House. As I support in principle the other parts of the Bill, I shall not vote against the Bill tonight but such is the strength of my opposition to part II that I find it impossible to vote for the Bill. I shall, therefore,abstain from voting.
  Parliamentary honour demands that we should follow our declared judgments in the Select Committee by subsequent votes on the Floor of the House. That is the action that I shall take at the conclusion of the debate, unless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is so persuaded by the cogency of my arguments that he agrees—as I hope he will—to withdraw part II.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell(Ealing, Southall): It is a pleasure to speak after my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who was a positive dynamo on one part of the Bill in the Select Committee. If the proposed changes in heavy goods vehicle testing were the sole contents of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman might cheerfully join us in the Lobby. However, we well understand that as an old-fashioned Tory who may believe in privatising wholesale the National Bus Company, he will probably feel unable to do that.
  Other provisions in the Bill are less controversial but will nevertheless need to be examined in minute detail in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) pointed out that the Government have introduced three highly controversial and detailed Bills that have taken up much Committee time. I refer to the Bills in 1980, 1981 and now 1982. I do not know whether there will be another Bill in 1983 and it is certainly doubtful whether a Conservative Government

  883
  will introduce a Transport Bill in 1984. We have just heard that the provisions for goods vehicle testing have caused grave public disquiet and that Conservative Members have serious misgivings about them. However, on Second Reading of such omnibus Bills the House cannot throw out that provision alone. If we could do so, we should have a more adequate and just parliamentary procedure.
  As I have declared before, I am a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. That union gave evidence to the Select Committee on the most important part of the Bill—the heavy goods vehicle testing provisions. It pointed out the widespread opposition to those provisions. During the speech made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh I almost intervened to suggest that the Secretary of State—who is relatively new to the subject of transport and to his responsibilities for transport in the Cabinet—should visit a testing station before the Bill's passage through the House is concluded. Members of the Select Committee visited such stations.
  I visited a station in the Hayes/Yeading area, not very far from my home. I got underneath a vehicle and witnessed the thorough way in which tests are carried out. I spoke to drivers who were bringing in their vehicles, to members of the staff who carry out the tests, to engineers and to supervisors. One of the matters that concerns them most is the necessity to subject vehicles coming in from other West European countries to the rigidity of testing to which British operated vehicles are traditionally subjected. The submission given to the Select Committee by the Transport and General Workers Union spoke of the measure of disquiet there would be if there were to be wholesale privatisation of heavy goods vehicle testing. Such a move must place a big question mark over the continuity of the standards to which people have become accustomed.
  While I was at the Yeading testing area, the police brought in a vehicle—a tipper lorry—which had one bald tyre and one brake that did not function at all. I am not suggesting that that vehicle would go forward under a privatised system, but will the new testing system be as rigid, as closely defined and as closely followed as the standard that exists at present? On that occasion during the summer, I went underneath the vehicle. Oil was dripping on to my new light suit. One man joked that he had deliberately put a dirty vehicle on to the testing pit to give me a true baptism. If the Secretary of State has not yet sampled that experience, and is drawing heavily on the theories of his predecessor, and his very able assistant the Under-Secretary of State, I suggest that he finds the time to undertake that experience.
  After the visit of the Secretary of State's predecessor, the staff believed that the whole matter was cut and dried, that it was a pure doctrinaire approach and that whatever alternative was put forward by drivers, owners and others, the changes were nevertheless going forward. Therefore, one cannot escape the conclusion that this policy emanates from pure dogma. We have had an exhibition today, from a self-confessed old-fashioned Conservative, who sees the value and tradition of what has existed, and who doubts very much the excessive monetarist theories of those who momentarily hold sway in the Government. I say "momentarily" because that will soon change.
  The House should also consider the role of the Select Committees in these matters. The Leader of the House
  884
  raised doubts about the wisdom—I put it no higher or lower—of the Government's current policies in the broad economic sense. During debate on the Queen's Speech in which changes in transport were discussed—no reference was made to the changes proposed today—he said that he believed the new Select Committees were working well. He thought that they were a good development in parliamentary procedure, which was bringing together Members of both sides of the House with varying experience. There was a considerable amount of transport experience in the Select Committee. It would be the best sort of collective wisdom in parliamentary procedure because Committees would report to the House and not to the Government on what was wise procedure and what was not.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh clearly set out the categorical terms in which the Select Committee turned down the proposals, after taking much evidence both from employer, employee and everyone interested in vehicle testing. When I visited the depot I asked the workers why they had such a profound faith in the existing position and they said that they felt safe with it. A co-operative attitude has been developed during the years and one has serious doubts whether it will be continued in the light of the proposals in the Bill.
  I do not believe that any hon. Member can be suitably informed in a debate of this sort without going through our painstaking report that was published last summer. As the Government are bludgeoning on with the proposals in the face of all the evidence and the feeling against the Bill, I wonder whether it would not be better for me to use my time as a Member of the House in other pursuits. Why should I and other hon. Members spend hours visiting various parts of Britain, Western Europe, and North America, collectively come to certain conclusions and put them before Parliament, only to have them turned down in a wholly unconvincing way? There is no doubt that what the Secretary of State has said up to now has not met Opposition challenges.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: My hon. Friend might emphasise the point made in the Government response to the report—sufficient written matter shows that during a year a wide range of evidence was taken—which was:
  "The evidence which you collected, and the analysis of the central issues which your report provides, have made a useful contribution to the debate on the proposals."
  That is another way for a new Secretary of State, who has been in office for three months, to say: "I am not the master. The officials have told me what to say."
  Mr. Bidwell: That is a valid observation. Opposition Members had mixed feelings when the new Select Committee system was developed. We now have a system similar to the American Congressional committee, which sifts evidence and takes evidence from witnesses. I welcome that development, but not all hon. Members do. Some hon. Members believe that everything should take place in this Chamber. The most serious work of Parliament cannot be undertaken in that way. When I was on the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration for 10 years—I was the longest serving Member—I struggled for a two-party consensus. I believed that it was not a party political matter and that it would be wiser to come to terms with it. Similarly, in our current study of London Transport, which has been affected by the Law

  885
  Lords decision, if we can say something intelligent that will help the House and the country, we expect it to be observed and given due weight. My complaint is that this part of our report on the main matter of the Bill is not being given due weight. The House would be likely to throw the Bill out tonight if it did not include other wider matters, such as the National Bus Company.
  I shall break away for a moment to consider the National Bus Company which is, as we have said in previous debates, an efficient company.
  We are all seriously worried about further incursions into and other aspects of the dismantling of the National Bus Company's undertakings and social obligations. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) touched on that. I have read that in this area there are serious effects as a result of cross-subsidisation by the National Bus Company. That puts a large question mark over the extent of the damage caused by the Government's earlier measure concerning the National Bus Company's undertakings.
  Of course, we all expect that the chairman of the National Bus Company, who is fighting for survival, will not oppose the Government lock, stock and barrel. He will necessarily make compromises and try to salvage what might be left after this doctrinaire approach to the National Bus Company and to the way in which the nation's transport is organised. He will bear in mind the social obligations of the National Bus Company. These have to be carried out under a fair amount of public scrutiny and supervision. We believe that, as a result of both the previous and the present measures, the position of the National Bus Company will worsen.
  There are other matters which, although they are a diversion from the mainstream of the Bill, must be examined minutely. The question of road worthiness of vehicles is one, as I have pointed out to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness has highlighted many apparent weaknesses in the Bill, the examination of which will take much time in Committee. 'The Secretary of State will find that there is widespread concern among Conservative as well as Opposition Members.
  I suspect that most hon. Members, certainly those with transport interests, have received communications from the RAC and the AA expressing their disquiet about the Bill in its present form, particularly with regard to relationships between the police and the public. That, too, can be discussed at great length in Committee.
  We had hoped that a new Secretary of State, with a fresh approach to transport matters, would step back and honour the profound findings of the Select Committee and not merely shove on regardless. If he had done that, he could have made a great political reputation for himself. As it is, he and his colleagues in the Cabinet—the hardline, "near-nutter" cases—are doomed to perish.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths(Bury St. Edmunds): I shall start with the extension of fixed penalties, which is possibly the most difficult aspect of the Bill, and continue with one of my first loves in transport—the National Bus Company—and the advantages, as I perceive them, which can and I believe will flow to the National Bus Company from the Bill.
  On fixed penalties—part III&mdash;I give my general support to my right hon. Friend for two specific reasons. First, the
  886
  burden on the police and the courts will be reduced. About 1 million fixed penalty tickets are never paid each year. That practice brings the law into contempt. In many places, particularly London, it means that there is a great deal more congestion and selfish parking than there ought to be. It means, too, that the great majority of law-abiding people who pay their parking fines are unfairly treated. It must be right to improve the enforceability of parking offences, as the Bill provides. It will also be a great relief to many of us who live in Central London.
  The second objective is that the police and the courts will not have to waste so much time. I note with interest my righ hon. Friend's calculation that this could take up to 600,000 cases per year out of the courts. That must be right. Among other things, it will allow the courts to deal more speedily and, therefore, more justly with the many cases of petty and violent crime that at present do not come to judgment sufficiently quickly due to congestion of the courts with traffic offences.
  It is common ground in the House—and here I declare an interest—that the more the police are diverted into sitting around in court, waiting for traffic offences to be dealt with, the less time the police will have to deal with their primary task, which is the enforcement of the law in respect of crimes of violence, theft and assault. I therefore greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's aims.
  I wish to ask two questions. For the first time my right hon. Friend is introducing fixed penalties for offences involving vehicles moving on the road. Does that mean that traffic wardens will be allowed to deal with them? The Minister will know that over the years the police service has been doubtful about the wisdom of extending to traffic wardens the policing of traffic offences involving moving vehicles. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will assure us that that is not the intention. All too often moving vehicle offences involve crimes such as theft as well as merely exceeding the speed limit. Secondly—I hate to say this, but I suppose that I should—traffic wardens, although an admirable group of people. have been known to take industrial action. I believe that it is inappropriate to allow matters that may involve crime to be dealt with by bodies that may from time to time withdraw their labour, which the police service is statute bound not to do. I seek assurance on that.
  I also seek clarification from the Minister on one further matter regarding fixed penalty offences. I refer to the cases to which the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Farness (Mr. Booth) alluded in which a police officer may take away a motorist's licence. I understand that this would be done only with the consent of the motorist and that the police officer would be required to issue a receipt. Much depends, however, on the efficiency of the system once the licence has been taken away to be endorsed, sometimes without a court order, and then to be sent back. I appreciate that the receipt will be sufficient evidence in the event of a further offence being committed.
  I take a single example. A constituent of mine, Miss Susan Carter, took her driving test in 1970 or 1971, passed it and was issued with a licence. In 1975 or 1976, she was prosecuted for careless driving, which was not a very serious offence but her licence was duly endorsed. When the 10-year period had expired, she applied in 1980 for a new licence, but was promptly told by the licensing centre in Swansea that she had never had one. The record had been lost. Plainly, the girl had a licence as she had passed her test and her licence had been endorsed, but she is now

  887
  told by Swansea that she never had one. I use that example to make my general point, although I am not in general a critic of Swansea. Indeed, I set up the centre, so I should be rather careful in that respect. Nonetheless, it is crucial when the police and motorists are exchanging licences for certificates and receipts, that the system should work smoothly and efficiently. Otherwise, they will have many more difficulties than they already have.
  Clause 45 concerns heavy lorries. Hostility in rural East Anglia to heavy lorries is enormous. A great deal of it is unfair but many of my constituents believe, rightly or wrongly, that lorries are already too big, noisy, dirty and that some of their drivers are far too inconsiderate. I approve specificaly two aspects in clause 45. First, environmental considerations can be taken into account when permissions to operate lorry depots are given. That will assist in two ways. First, a large lorry depot in a small village has grown rapidly over the years from containing perhaps one or two lorries to 10 to 12 lorries, and begins to dominate the village.
  Needless to say, the House will never favour retrospective legislation. One cannot reach back into the past and stop a garage or depot from growing in response to normal trade. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will use such powers and persuasion as are available to him to apply the effect of clause 45 to additional growth, from the moment the Bill becomes law, to prevent any further extension of lorry depots in small villages.
  I also welcome the other aspect of the environmental clause. This, I suppose, will enable local authorities to inhibit the inconsiderate habits of some owner-drivers and other regular drivers from taking their lorries home with them and parking them every night or every other night often in front of terraced houses. That has an appalling impact on the environment. Generally, it involves a vehicle being started at 4 o'clock in the morning and waking everybody up. Worse, it damages the road haulage industry in the eyes of the public.
  I hope that clause 45 will be applied as vigorously as possible, both to the village lorry depot and to the habit of selfishly parking heavy goods vehicles in front of people's homes.
  Mr. David Howell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point which gives me an opportunity to clarify briefly my reply on the same point to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) about the application of this clause. "0" licences, of course, are usually valid for about five years, so that that would obviously apply to new applicants and to those whose licences had expired and who were reapplying. I wanted to make it clear that that would be the extent of it.
  Mr. Griffiths: I listened with great respect, and affection, to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir David Price), Chairman of the Select Committee inquiry. Since he was promoting the circulation of his report, I am glad to tell him that I have read at least a good deal, if not all, of it. He made a strong impression on the House. I am certain that Ministers will want to reflect carefully on the powerful objections that he and the Opposition Front Bench made on this point.
  However, I disagree on the point of principle. It is not a valid proposition that anything touching on safety cannot or should not be handled in the private sector. In much of
  888
  the mechanical engineering industry—railway trains, cars, aircraft and the vast number of machines operating in factories—safety is inevitably tested, maintained and regularly checked by the private sector.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh in saying that it must be the Government's responsibilitity to maintain standards, monitor performance and ensure enforcement. These are the proper tasks of Government. However, that does not necessarily mean that only Government servants—I use that anodyne phrase rather than "civil servants" or "bureaucrats"—can be entrusted with the mechnical job of checking the safety of vehicles.
  Technology in any event is going to make a profound change in the testing field. The modern dynamometer is capable of checking fumes, noise, emissions, revolutions and all other factors in a modern engine. Increasingly, vehicle engines will be tested in that way. It therefore is not right, inevitably, to suppose that only the State can provide the investment to buy these modern machines in order that the job shall be done.
  The heart of the Bill is the possibility of a better future for the National Bus Company. The congestion of roads by motor cars and the increasing cost of petrol mean that the bus could in the long run prove to be the saviour of transport in Britain. The impact of the ASLEF strike on the railways will make it very difficult to maintain some of the rural lines that have operated under the unremunerative services grant over the past 10 years. I should regret it if many of them were forced into closure by the folly of the locomotive drivers' main union, but we must consider the prospect of an effective profitable bus company taking up the slack if that were to happen.
  Bury St. Edmunds is the centre of many routes,; almost like a bicycle wheel. Buses arrive from the north, south, east and west into a small town of some 25,000 people carrying every day tens of thousands of people from the surrounding villages and smaller towns to work, shop, be educated and to attend our hospitals. Bury is a natural bus town. It has one of the better rural networks for buses in Britain. But, alas, the town also has what the National Bus Company itself calls the "worst bus depot" in England.
  This depot is a mess. Its only advantage is that it is in the middle of the town, which helps the shopper and the person visiting our hospital, school or library; but it is bad for everybody else. It is bad for the bus company because the buses cannot turn round properly, for the bus crews because they have nowhere to take a rest and no proper facilities while waiting to drive their vehicles on further legs. It is very bad for passengers; there are no decent shelters or toilets. As the buses turn, they eject oil on to the road so the depot is also dirty and dangerous. All in all, this bus station is very bad for one of the most beautiful and historical of our market towns. Not only is it ugly; it has sterilised the sensitive development of the centre of Bury St. Edmunds.
  The bus company, trade unions, local authority and all my constituents agree with me on this. Therefore, I much welcomed the recent speech of the Under-Secretary when he called for a massive effort to unlock the existing development value in this as in so many other of our town centre bus depots. When I had his job, the chairman of the National Bus Company painted a sorrowful picture. The company was broke. That was the legacy we inherited in 1970; and we had to put in the accountants—virtually the receivers—and practically rebuild the company. Through the ministrations of the last Labour Government, as well

  889
  as the present Conservative Government, it is now doing better. In particular, some of the express services are now doing better, although at some cost to the stage bus services.
  It is unacceptable, however, that valuable real estate in town centres cannot be developed because the National Bus Company does not have the money and cannot borrow the money. It is therefore logical to allow the National Bus Company to bring in the private sector to carry out sensible development.
  I return to the example of Bury St. Edmunds. It is not a nationally important town. It simply is a lovely town. If the Eastern Counties section of the National Bus Company were enabled to form, with the private sector, a joint development company, it would in my judgment be able to build, out of Britain's worst bus station, one of its best bus stations. We could have decent shelters, toilets and places for the bus crews. Offices could also be established over such development. Some money too could be earned out of the development of a site that is at present sterile.
  I therefore commend the proposal in the Bill that the National Bus Company should be allowed to escape from owning sterilised real estate. It should have powers to get together with the private sector to develop for the general public good.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has remarked, this Bill is another step down the road towards privatisation. This is a matter on which the two sides of the House profoundly disagree, but I wish to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the two Secretaries of State for Transport since the last election on the rapid progress made in the sale of British Rail hotels. That represents an important step forward. I back them too on the transfer of road construction units to the private sector. About £2,000 million worth of design work is now conducted, or shortly will be conducted, in the private sector. I am equally glad that when the long leases of motorway service areas expire they will enable them to be offered competitively to the private sector. I am glad also that they have announced that when market conditions are favourable—I hope that this will be soon—the British Transport Docks Board will be floated off to private enterprise.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I happen to be chairman of the ports committee of the Labour Party transport group in the House. I have never known, in all the years of the British Transport Docks Board, any complaint to be made of lack of efficiency or lack of competitiveness among its ports. That is a sterling example of public ownership. Many people feel that the few small ports remaining outside public ownership should join these ports.
  Mr. Griffiths: I share the regard of the hon. Gentleman for the British Transport Docks Board's ports. I had some responsibility for them over a number of years. I make no complaint about their general efficiency. The difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself is that he seems to regard privatisation as a penalty.
  Mr. Leadbitter: No.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that privatisation means that something is being taken away. I take the view that the State should only do that which its citizens are unable or unwilling to do. I believe that the State should not put its hand into the taxpayer's pocket and
  890
  remove compulsorily the people's money unless there is a compelling reason for this. I do not complain about the British Transport Docks Board. My argument is that there is no reason compulsorily to use the taxpayer's money for its purposes if these can be done in the private sector.
  Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman argues a point of political philosophy. I am not saying that privatisation is a penalty. I am, however, saying that when an industry has been tried and tested over the years and found to be efficient and has also made a considerable contribution to improving the economy, it is dogma and political nonsense for the hon. Gentleman's party to privatise it.
  Mr. Griffiths: That intervention by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) allows me to conclude on the point I was about to make. I believe generally that privatisation benefits the industries concerned. It frees them from the straitjacket of Treasury supervision and of the PSBR. To be released from those constraints is the best that can be done. I can say from personal experience that the National Bus Company has been held back more by the restraints of the PSBR and the Treasury than by anything else.
  The second group to benefit from privatisation are consumers. There can be no argument about the way in which deregulation and the freeing of competition has allowed the bus companies—including the National Bus Company—to offer new routes and lower fares. That has helped the consumer.
  The whole economy, too, is assisted by privatisation. The receipts from the sale of public assets reduce the PSBR.
  Above all, the general public benefit from privatisation. It is the only real way in which they can become shareholders in the firms concerned. When I left the Royal Air Force, I supported the Labour Party. I did so because, as a young man, I believed that the ownership of public assets meant that all the people would be shareholders. Since then, I have faced reality. The nationalised industries are not operated on the basis that they are the property of the consumers. They are faraway monoliths managing their own affairs. I want ownership by the people to mean what it says. Privatisation means that institutions, trade unions and individuals can purchase shares and exercise the authority that goes with them. That is real ownership by the people. That is what I want. II is for those reasons of detail and of principle that 'I strongly support the Bill.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Tom Bradley: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) on his extremely careful analysis of the Bill and the criticisms that he applied to it. I share particularly his conclusion that it is most regrettable that the Bill has been presented in its present mixed form. Some hon. Members say that parts of the Bill are good whereas others say that parts of the Bill are wholly bad.
  Parts I and II form the real substance of the Bill. The rest of the Bill merely seeks to sugar those unpalatable pills. It is almost a discourtesy to the House that the Secretary of State thought it appropriate to bring forward legislation as innocuous as that contained in part III in a single package. Parts I and II engage the mainstream philosophy of the Tory Administration on its must unstable ground.

  891
  The powers provided in part I for the National Bus Company to sell shares in any of its subsidiaries are all part of the Government's drive towards the privatisation of the publicly owned and controlled transport sector. I should have no objection if the Government were saying, as they implied in the press release when the Bill was published, that there was to be an introduction of private capital into the National Bus Company. The National Bus Company could make good use of that or of any capital, public or private, because, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has said, the commercial development of the many excellent sites owned and controlled by the company in cities all over Britain is long overdue. This company is starved of funds, and investment from any source would be more than welcome.
  What are the Government really planning? Are they contemplating the introduction of private capital into the National Bus Company or are they conspiring instead to sell off lucrative parts of the company to its commercial rivals? It is clear that the Secretary of State's intention is to sell off publicly owned assets rather than to introduce capital into a publicly owned enterprise. In the press release on 29 January the Secretary of State said that the Government believe
  "that there is scope particularly for involving the private sector in the NBC's coach operations—including the successful National Express network of inter-city services."
  In no other public sector have the Government yet been able to put together, thanks to the myopia of the Treasury, a mechanism for introducing private capital into State-owned companies. It is evident that what the Government are talking about is selling off the National Bus Company's inter-city service. Why? What do they expect to gain? As has already been said, National Express represents about 7 per cent. of the total business of the National Bus Company.
  Mr. lain Mills: The hon. Member mentioned the difficulty of finding a financial mechanism. Does he therefore deny both for himself and on behalf of his party the benefits to employees of the National Freight Corporation of the Government's action which has allowed a management buy-out, perhaps the most democratic shift in ownership for many decades?
  Mr. Bradley: The new company has hardly been floated. We had better reserve judgment until we can gauge the success or otherwise of the Government's intentions.
  As I was saying, National Express represents about 7 per cent. of the total business of the National Bus Company. It is an inter-city express coach service which depends for its success on three things. First, it is an all-embracing national service with a timetable to rival that of British Rail when the trains are running. Secondly, it can economise in the use of vehicles and staff. It has flexibility. For example, it may need only 350 coaches in the winter, but it can quickly expand this to over 3,000 vehicles during the summer peak and drivers can be redeployed accordingly. Thirdly, its services interconnect with those of the separate National Bus Company operators, thus providing the nation with a genuine national bus and coach operation.
  Therefore, although National Express represents only 7 per cent. of the National Bus Company's operations, it
  892
  is the major contributor to its profits. If NBC loses National Express it will lose its profitable arm. Let us make no mistake about that. That is the arm which not only feeds the company's national finances but also provides essential support for local operations across the country.
  Why should this even be considered? The reason lies not in the failure of NBC to do its job but in its success. The Transport Act 1980 was designed, we were told, to liberate the nation's bus and coach operations. The aim of the Secretary of State's predecessor was to unleash British Coachways, the Freddie Laker of the roads, on to the English transport system. Private enterprise coaches would outprice at exceptionally low fares the lame and halt nationalised and municipalised undertakings. Nothing like this has happened.
  British Coachways, the arm of free enterprise, has more or less disappeared, destroyed by its inability to provide the service required by the travelling public, and it is now resorting to special operational arrangements with the National Bus Company to survive in any shape. In other words, low fares were not enough. A reliable and regular service was what the public wanted. They found it with the nationalised National Bus Company.
  Now the Secretary of State has to find another way to destroy the nationalised sector. He has not been able to do it through competition. If the National Bus Company cannot be beaten by private enterprise, he says, let us cut off its profitable arm. The private sector ought to do well when that happens, but will it? Will it have the flexibility possessed by the National Bus Company? Will it have the feeder services provided by the National Bus Company? Will it have the sales outlets?
  If the privatisation goes ahead, the rest of the operations of the National Bus Company will be imperilled; the backbone will have gone. Many of the local companies will be unable to finance their stage carriage services. There is no logic and no sense—nothing but dogma—behind part I of the Bill.
  Part II provides for the privatisation of heavy goods vehicle and passenger service vehicle testing of lorries, buses and coaches. Here we see this doctrinal Government at their worst. This is privatisation for the sake of it and to hell with the consequences. Testing is carried out for only one reason—safety for the driver and all other road users who are on the road at the same time. The House ought to note that the present system costs the taxpayer nothing. Rightly, it is self-financing, Civil Service costs being covered by the fees paid by the operators. Privatisation will bring no benefit to taxpayers. If anything, it will increase costs to them by the complicated system of inspection and control which the House will properly require.
  The Select Committee on Transport has been referred to several times during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who carried out the important task of chairing a Sub-Committee examination of the testing of these vehicles. He and his colleagues carried out an exhaustive enquiry into the proposals published by the Department of Transport in August 1980. They took evidence from all the main interests in the bus and lorry industry.
  What did those interests have to say? They told the Sub-Committee that they were extremely concerned about a number of aspects of proposed policy. They were concerned that testing stations might be transferred to unsuitable organisations, the fear being that the impartial

  893
  testing service currently being provided would be undermined. They said that it would be more difficult to maintain uniform standards of testing between different testing stations. They said that some of the smaller testing stations in the more remote areas might be found to be commercially unviable, and the integrity of the testing station network might therefore be impaired. They went on to say that there would be additional costs involved in providing a satisfactory monitoring of the private sector testing stations.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues saw representatives of the bus industry, who outlined particular problems that they faced with the introduction of annual tests for buses, problems which would be compounded by the transfer of testing to the private sector.
  Before the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) reminds us for the fourth time that he has had a document from the Freight Transport Association, which he has obviously read and suspects that we have not, may I tell him that I have studied it with great care? I believe that the association is seeking to put a brave face on the fact that the Government have brutally overridden all the sensible objections that it has made. In other words, the Select Committee on Transport could find nobody in favour of the Government's ideas, no matter how wedded those organisations were to the concept of free enterprise. Why? I believe that the reason is that they came down in favour of sanity—that is, in favour of safety testing remaining in the hands of impartial Government servants who have done the job to everybody's satisfaction to date. Nobody wished to see the system, which safeguards the public as much as, if not more than, the operators, hived off to interests with commercial considerations. The Select Committee, expressing no doubts, recommended in its fourth report of last Session that the system should remain as it is.
  The Government have taken no notice, although exactly the same evidence was available to them. They implied in their observations on the Select Committee's report that the operators' associations were now less hostile to the proposals. The Government's view is no doubt shared by the hon. Member for Meriden. Presumably the associations are now regarded as less hostile—this will no doubt be trotted out later in the debate—because they will have a statutory right to consultation. A fat lot of good consultation is with the present Government!
  The overwhelming objection remains, however—the introduction of commercial considerations into a procedure designed to protect the public from unsafe lorries and buses on the roads. This part of the Bill is totally irresponsible and represents a threat to the safety of every citizen. I and the party that I now represent will have no hesitation in voting against Second Reading.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Fry: With the exception of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), the debate so far has followed an unusual pattern. We have heard from Members belonging to all parties strong reservations about many of the proposals in the Bill. I shall be no exception to the tenor of the debate so far.
  It gives me no pleasure to say that I find many aspects of the Bill disappointing, not least because the Bill fails to take any notice of the major transport problem facing
  894
  the Government and the country, which is the future of British Rail. I do not want to go into detail, but it is clear that at an early opportunity the Government will have to consider what they will do. For example, can they sustain the rural lines, a problem hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds? If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to introduce an annual Bill, I hope that he will before long put right that error of omission and tackle what is clearly a major problem.
  Various acts of commission in the Bill do not please me greatly either. First, there are the proposals for the privatisation of the vehicle testing stations and of National Express, as part of the National Bus Company. I am far from opposed to privatisation or denationalisation. On the contrary, I believe that both should be pursued wherever possible, but in the transport context the first priority should not be the pursuit of any political dogma or prejudice. I believe that I am more entitled to criticise dogma than are Opposition Members, in view of their so often nationalising industries which did not need it.
  The priority should be the efficient working of our transport industries. For reasons that I hope to make clear, I am far from satisfied as yet that the Government's proposals are either sufficiently clear or sufficiently proved to be in the best interests of the country or the transport industry.
  Much mention has already been made of the deliberations and conclusions of the Select Committee on Transport. I do not want to go over the ground so excellently covered already, but I should like to make the following observation. I came to the examination of witnesses and the comments of my colleagues on the Committee with the scepticism of a Conservative. Ir, other words, my natural inclination was to side with the Government's proposals. A reading of the Committee's proceedngs will show that I did my best to get some of the harsher wording tempered in the final report
  However, if one is to serve on a Select Committee and to read about the case in detail, one must try to put one's political prejudices on one side. Otherwise, one is not fulfilling the proper purpose of a member of a Select Committee. After reading all the evidence, I found it impossible to avoid the view that the only person who seemed enthusiastic about the vehicle testing proposals was my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary.
  I was struck by the large number of outside bodies that were categorical on the subject. I also accept that their latest attitude is an attempt to put a brave face on what they regard as a final conclusion by the Government.
  It is clear that the Select Committee's investigation was thorough and that there was universal agreement. The Government should bear those facts in mind, since otherwise they are in effect calling into question the whole purpose of the Select Committee. What are we supposed to be there for? Is it not to try to look objectively at serious problems of our time and to reach conclusions that are not biased by political views but are in the best interests of the country as a whole? I am disappointed that my hon. and learned Friend did not take the advice that we offered him then and are again offering him tonight.
  When I come to the other proposal for privatisation. relating to the National Bus Company and paticularly the National Express coach services, I must declare my interest once again. My reservations about these proposals result from my fairly long association with public transport matters and particularly the time that I spent while the

  895
  Conservative Party was in Opposition as chairman of its bus policy group, when we were preparing our manifesto for the last general election.
  For an understanding of the background to my doubts, it is important to consider a little of the history of National Express. When the National Bus Company came into being, National Express was created as a single company, operating its own coaches and employing its own drivers. To put it mildly, it soon ran into serious trouble. Separate accounts for that company were never published—whether they were kept, I do not know—but we know that the running of the company as it was then was almost a disaster. Indeed, it could have been the object of the kind of criticisms that some of my hon. Friends are always making about nationalised industries.
  However, the point is that there has been a major and important change in the running of that company. No longer is it a company that depends entirely upon coaches run in its own narrow interest, particularly by the subsidiaries of National Travel. Now, as has been pointed out, it is part of the whole network of the National Bus Company. When the Transport Act 1980 came into being it took off and gained a tremendous advantage from the freeing from the licensing restrictions that had hitherto prevented its expansion.
  The National Bus Company has in effect used resources that would otherwise have been surplus in its various operating subsidiaries to try to obtain a national coach network, which has successfully competed, particularly in recent months, not just with the private sector but with British Rail itself. It has been able to do this and at the same time perform two very important functions. First, it has made a contribution to the overheads and the running expenses of the National Bus Company itself. Secondly, and perhaps more important, the use of the subsidiary companies has enabled those operations to support other bus activities which might otherwise have been curtailed.
  What, then, is wrong or questionable about the Government's attitude to National Express? It may well be—I have yet to be convinced—that the worst fears of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) will not be fulfilled, that the Government do not intend to sell off or hive off profitable parts of the company and leave the rest to fend for themselves. The danger surely is that if the company is to be sold off, either it will have to operate as a separate entity or it will have to depend to a greater or lesser extent upon the subsidiary companies which are part of the National Bus Company.
  If the company operates entirely as a separate entity, it can of course try to go the same way as National Express did when it was set up—in which case I wish it the best of luck, but I do not think that it will be a very profitable organisation. On the other hand, it could continue to subcontract to the various component companies of the NBC. If so, can my hon. and learned Friend see a company which has been sold off and is presumably operating independently allowing itself to be completely at the behest of a series of companies totally within the nationalised sector? That is an idea that I find it somewhat difficult to accept.
  The other side of this is that the company could try to do without the coaches and the services of the subsidiary
  896
  companies, in which case, if their operations should be stopped, they would suffer a considerable reduction in cash flow and revenue.
  It is possible that the new company will not have the free and wonderful future that my hon. and learned Friend obviously hopes because, as I understand it, the 1980 Act enables any coach operator to compete freely with any other coach operator. What is to stop the various component companies of the NBC operating in competition with the hived-off National Express? Furthermore, they will be able to do what some private operators are doing to Cumberland Motor Services; they will be able to cream off the best of the routes when it suits them. Because their vehicles and their drivers can be used elsewhere, their marginal costs will be lower than those of anyone who is trying to run an overall national coach network.
  I believe, therefore, that there are many questions to be answered before we can possibly agree that the Government's proposals are right either for the National Bus Company or for the travelling public.
  There is a suggestion—at the moment it is no more than that—that the Government might try to alter the rules a little. The 1980 Act certainly made a major alteration in the rules, and if some of the scenarios I have been trying to describe come about I hope that my hon. Friends will not be tempted to try to alter the rules again. It has been suggested that the subsidiary companies of NBC might be directed either to subcontract to the hived-off National Express or indeed not to run coach operations at all. It has even been suggested that the 1980 Act might have to be amended against the National,' Bus Company or its subsidiaries.
  I am not standing here as a defender of a nationalised industry against private enterprise, but I am saying that we cannot have one set of rules for one part of the market and another set of rules for the other—at least, not if we are true Conservatives and believe in fair competition. There is a grave danger that unless some of the questions and situations that I have been spelling out tonight are resolved by the Government we will be led down a difficult road and might have to defend situations and attitudes that we never thought would come into being. I think I have said enough to show my great concern about the future of the bus industry and the coach industry.
  I am particularly worried that the Government have not made their views sufficiently clear, because the Bill gives such wide powers to the Secretary of State. I hope that before the debate ends tonight we shall have some assurances that those wide powers will not be taken without further reference to the House on some future occasion.
  I am concerned about the reduction in other bus services that could result from the loss of revenue because, despite brave words to the other effect, all of us know what is happening in our own constituencies. It is becoming increasingly difficult to move around after 5 or 6 o'clock at night or on a Sunday. The truth is that public transport is still deteriorating in this country, and I believe that anything that happens, whatever the political theory behind it, which causes a further deterioration should be resisted.
  It was suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester, East that the third part of the Bill was not quite so important. I believe that in some respects it is equally important.
  Mr. Bradley: I said it was not controversial.
  Mr. Fry: As a member of the RAC public policy committee, I know that the RAC regards it as highly controversial. Indeed, we have had representations not only from the RAC but also from the AA, particularly on the problem of the fixed penalty system. The idea that a licence has to be produced which gives the motorist certain benefits over the motorist who cannot produce a licence and that a policeman may inspect it is introducing a new element into British law.
  There is a real danger that someone who is innocent until proven guilty may find that, unlike in a court of law, his previous offences are known to the person who may be responsible for initiating the prosecution. It has been an established part of British law for many years that a person's past convictions are not revealed until after the case is heard and a decision is made. There is a real danger of worsening police public relations considerably if there is not a change in the basis upon which the present proposal is put forward.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have hesitated to interrupt before now but my hon. Friend really is labouring under a serious misapprehension about the present arrangements in magistrates courts. Whenever a prosecution is brought against anybody in the courts of this country almost invariably the prosecutor knows whether or not he has previous convictions. It is one of the many facts in the case before the prosecutor when he comes to decide whether or not to go a head
  Of course, if there is a dispute about guilt or innocence, the jury or the magistrates who have to decide the case will not be told about previous convictions, and that will remain the position in these instances. If the motorist contests the case, his previous convictions will not be disclosed. However, it is mistaken to believe that it is a novel proposition that the prosecutor or person deciding to prosecute does not know about previous convictions. That is the ordinary course of events in all criminal and motoring cases.
  Mr. Fry: Despite what my hon. and learned Friend says, the police should not be allowed to inspect a licence to see whether there have been any previous endorsements before reaching a decision to prosecute. It is laughable that a licence can be sent to Swansea and lost for several months while the poor unfortunate motorist has to wander around with a receipt. If Swansea was more efficient, this part of the Bill might be workable. However, we receive many complaints about the way that Swansea operates. A great deal more work needs to be done on this proposal before it will be acceptable to the motorist.
  As I have made clear, I am somewhat unhappy about the Bill. I shall find it difficult to support the Government tonight. I wish to put some points to my hon. and learned Friend, which I hope he can resolve when he replies. What real support is there from any interested parties for the privatisation of the testing stations? I do not detect any support at all. What will be the role of the Select Committee which, having investigated the matter in great detail, has seen its advice torn up by the Government?
  Because of fears about the Government's intentions and because of worries about the effect of the changes in the NBC that will be engendered by the hiving off of National Express, will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House
  898
  that before matters are finalised the Government will give the House the opportunity, through the affirmative resolution procedure, to decide whether the final scheme is acceptable? Currently, we are dealing with a hotchpotch of a Bill, of which this issue is one important part. We should be allowed to consider it in isolation and reach a decision on it.
  Will my hon. and learned Friend assure us that the Government have no intention of amending the 1980 Act to bend the rules under which coach operators operate or of giving directions to the NBC and its subsidiaries that could be detrimental to its cash flows and, therefore, indirectly to the services that it provides? The answers that he gives to those questions will determine how I vote at the conclusion of the debate.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: As the debate progresses I am sure that the Under-Secretary realises the great difficulty that he will be in when he replies, especially following the speeches of the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). Whatever happens in the Lobby tonight—the Government may win the vote—it is obvious at this early stage of the debate that the Government have lost the argument.
  I turn to the speech made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley). I make no secret of my dislike of the way in which hon. Members move from one party to another and form themselves into a group. However, it would be churlish of me if I did not recognise his demolition job on and his expert analysis of the Bill. I disagree with him on the same point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough disagreed with him—the fixed penalty system. That matter is more important than hon. Members appear to realise.
  I do not want to deal in detail with part I because the NBC does not operate in Scotland, although it transports people to and from Scotland. I do not have any great knowledge of the NBC. I accept the analysis made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and also that of the hon. Member for Leicester, East.
  I am especially interested in parts II and III. The proposition in part II that the Government should privatise the vehicle testing of HGVs and PSVs is highly dangerous. It is worth taking time to examine closely what the Government are suggesting. It is clear in the Bill that anyone buying one or more testing centres can operate them as a combined garage and vehicle testing unit. Every right hon. and hon. Member knows of cases in the car sector where there have been serious malpractices. For example, a garage selling a vehicle may also issue a test certificate. We can all quote outrageous examples of the treatment of our constituents by that system. Recently was informed of an incident where a customer bought a second hand car from a garage which issued an MOT certificate. A year later, when the MOT certificate had to be renewed, the customer took the car to a different testing centre only to be told that the car was not one car, but two separate halves of two insurance write-offs—the front of one insurance write-off and the rear of another had been welded together and sold by the previous garage with an MOT certificate.
  I am not saying that that practice is widespread, but there is not one right hon. or hon. Member who cannot say

  899
  that he does not know of at least two or three such cases that have been brought to his notice either at his surgery or in correspondence. Is that risk worth running with HGV and PSV testing? The Government have the matter fundamentally wrong, and the risk is not worth running. The safety aspect of HGV and PSV testing is a public safety aspect rather than a private safety aspect. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will give the House an absolute commitment that he will reconsider that aspect of the Bill before it reaches Committee, and meet the obvious concern shown on both sides of the House about the dangers involved in privatising PSV and HGV testing centres.
  I wish to say a few words about the testing centres in Scotland, which are fairly widespread. Although the hon. Member for Leicester, East said that centres are self-financing, one or two of them are not, but are subsidised by other centres in other parts of the country. There is a danger in Scotland that the number of HGV and PSV testing centres could be substantially reduced if the proposals to privatise the testing services went ahead.
  I hope that I have persuaded the Under-Secretary of State that part II has no friends. Not a shred of evidence has been submitted in support of it; it has all been against it. Despite what the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) keeps popping up and down to say, we accept that the Freight Transport Association is making the best of a bad job when it accepts that it possibly faces a fait accompli. It is putting on a brave face.
  I am pleased that the new Solicitor-General for Scotland is with us. I congratulate him. I hope that he has a happy, but short, term of office. His presence is a recognition of the importance of this part of the Bill for Scotland, particularly clauses 25 and 36 and schedules 1 and 2.
  There is a radical difference between the law in Scotland and that in England and Wales, where there is no need for corroboration. The evidence of one police officer is sufficient for traffic and many other offences. Often the police prosecute as well as stopping the offender. In Scotland the law of corroboration requires two police officers. The procurator fiscal decides whether an offence will be prosecuted. The police merely report the offence to the procurator fiscal.
  I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland, through the Under-Secretary of State, to assure the House that the law on corroboration will be maintained. The need for corroboration was abolished for duties performed by traffic wardens by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, but it was made clear that that was as far as the breach in the law on corroboration would go. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance that the law on corroboration will be maintained and that there is to be no further breach by the introduction of the fixed penalty system.
  The proposals in the Bill are based, by and large, on the Stewart Committee report, which was published before the Government proposed the totting-up system for disqualification for traffic offences. It is interesting to discover from the report that all the police associations in Scotland are opposed to such proposals. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) expressed opposition, although there was a chief police officer on the
  900
  committee—Chief Constable Morrison. The chief constables association gave evidence against the proposals. The Superintendents Association and Police Federation for Scotland are also opposed to the proposals.
  The police argue that they will be brought into greater conflict with the public than is necessary. The Government should not brush that argument aside lightly, particularly when those of us who are anxious to uphold the rule of law and order are working hard to build good relations between the police and the public after the incidents—with faults on both sides—in the last two or three years.
  It is also interesting to note that the sheriffs clerks branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants was opposed to the proposals. It is not an unimportant body. Due weight should be given to its opposition.
  If I can help the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the superintendents and the Police Federation expressed their opposition in paragraph 3a of the report. I hope that he recognises at an early stage in his career my desire to help.
  The Law Society of Scotland also expressed opposition to the proposals, based on the belief that disqualification and an endorsement had more or less the same standing. In other words, an endorsement on a driving licence is just as serious as a disqualification, because it eventually leads to disqualification. The Stewart Committee thought that the police officers, the sheriffs clerks and the Law Society placed undue weight on the endorsement aspect. The committee did not take such a serious view.
  I share the views of the Law Society that endorsement, which eventually leads to disqualification, is as serious as disqualification because of the new totting-up system. It is important to record the fact that the Stewart report was published before totting-up was introduced.
  I have deliberately not so far mentioned the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties to spare the blushes of the new Solicitor-General, who at one time was its legal adviser. I do not want to put him in an embarrassing situation. But that strong and respectable body of opinion, as one would expect, is opposed to the proposal.
  Part III should be a separate Bill. It would be a tragedy to get bogged down in the privatisation of the National Bus Company and the vehicle testing centres. Important aspects of the Bill could slip through and there could be serious consequences for the individual. Serious consequences will not flow from parts I and II, obnoxious as they are. The Government have committed a grave error by including part III. It should have been a separate piece of legislation to give the House adequate time to go into the details of its various aspects.
  I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that the proposal will reduce the burden of court work. There were 1/4 million traffic or summary offences in Scotland last year, and over 50 per cent. of the people accused pleaded guilty by letter.
  Clause 36 proposes that the procurator fiscal makes the alleged offender a conditional offer if it is a fixed penalty offence. If the offer is not accepted within 21 days, court proceedings can begin. Within 60 days the procurator fiscal must make clear to the alleged offender the date and place of trial—the diet. That procedure will increase the amount of work and not reduce it. It will also increase friction and tension between the police and public. It is a grave mistake to include in the Bill the provisions in part III. Important issues are involved that affect individuals throughout the country.

  901
  I conclude almost where I began. Serious consequences will flow from almost every aspect of the Bill, but the most serious for the individual will come from part III. I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure me that the law of corroboration in Scotland will not be further breached. That is an important and serious issue. Without that assurance, the grave and deep concern will remain. I hope, too, if not tonight, in Committee, the criticisms will be answered of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), the Superintendents Association, the Police Federation for Scotland, the sheriffs clerks, the Law Society and the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, all of which oppose the proposals. I hope that I have impressed on the Under-Secretary and the Solicitor-General for Scotland how seriously I regard part III.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Iain Mills(Meriden): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State on carrying out the Government's policy on transport in this third Bill. Right hon. and hon. Members are mean not to recognise that transport, in which we have been interested for many years, is yet again in the forefront of legislation.
  It is bad that the so-called mould-breaking SDP has had only one speaker, who appeared briefly. The SDP has not made a serious attempt to outline its transport policy, apart from saying that it is against privatisation. I hope that SDP Members will do better than they did in yesterday's employment debate. Transport is an integral and important part of the nation's business.
  This is a mixed Bill, which should come as no surprise. I enjoyed the long hours on the two previous Transport Bills. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) is not joined on the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who, along with the right hon.Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), kept us entertained for many long hours. I hope that those who hear these words do not take them as a sign that I wish to be a member of the Committee on this Bill. The long hours and intellectual debate could so captivate me that I may find it difficult to drag myself away.
  The Bill contains measures that will simplify the traffic penalty system as well as other transport items. All that comes within the long title of the Bill and is legitimate. Such a mix of content has been common practice in Bills under other Governments. The 1981 Bill may also have been criticised for its mixed nature, but it contained substantial matters. Some may have been controversial between the two main parties, but on others there was common ground. It cannot be argued that Bills should contain only matters of political importance to the Government. They should also contain matters which are agreed on. It is logical to have mixed Bills. It is hypocritical for right hon. and hon. Members to criticise the Bill for that.
  Part I contains the most interesting proposal to allow the National Bus Company to introduce private capital. I deliberately put it that way. It
  "empowers NBC to sell shares in any of their subsidiaries, with the consent of the Secretary of State, and to dispose of the whole or any part of the undertaking or property of a subsidiary; and, with the Secretary of State's consent, to provide for employee's share schemes to be established in respect of subsidiaries in which shares are to be sold."
  902
  That provision should not be subject to mean-minded and miserly criticism. We should recognise the Government's pioneering efforts, which have not yet come to fruition, in allowing National Freight Corporation employees to consider a management buy-out. As I said earlier, that is the most democratic way to transfer ownership from nationalised industries to private enterprise.
  Nationalised industries are financed from the public purse. During the passage of the previous Transport Bills we argued that the introduction of private funds to certain subsidiaries of British Rail freed it from cash limits and other restrictions that the Government have to apply to public undertakings. The taxpayer's pocket is not bottomless. The more that we take out of it the more we feed inflation. We should have learnt that lesson by now. There have been many good examples.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Nationalised industries could go to the market for finance, but the Government are dogmatic about not allowing them to do so.
  Mr. Mills: The introduction of yet more capital, unless accompanied by improved efficiency, which the disciplines of private finance would bring, would be sterile. A nationalised company should not be free to pay more money to employees without justifying it by increased productivity. That would only reduce the organisation's effectiveness and efficiency and it would then have to be bailed out by the taxpayer.
  It is obvious that if we can find opportunities for the introduction of private cash that is a good thing, particularly when—I re-emphasise this in the light of the tragic lack of any mention of it by any Labour Memberߞthe Bill, on its front page, points out:
  "Employee's share schemes to be established in respect of subsidiaries in which shares are to be sold".
  Surely, if hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches are taking a mean-minded attitude because of an ideological commitment to nationalisation, they must recognise that this is the most democratic method of allowing the people who work in the company to exercise industrial democracy. I find it strange that this has not yet been mentioned.
  The Bill paves the way for the introduction of private capital into the National Bus Company. This would involve in particular NBC's coach operation, which includes the national express network of inter-city services and the improvement of the passenger facilities. I am surprised that no mention of that has been made tonight. I have a number of constituents who, because of the recent problems of British Rail, have had to start using NBC's excellent service between my constituency, which takes in part of Birmingham and Coventry, and London. They have found those services to be extremely good, so much so, that several constituents, including business men who make regular journeys, have said that they will probably continue to use the service. They, find it good, comfortable, quick and cheap.
  It is an object lesson to those providing the alternative service of British Rail that some of the changes taking place because of the present difficulties will be permanent. However, one aspect that has been criticised is the facilities. I have in my constituency the excellent facilities of the Birmingham international train station and I can understand how, comparing that with the Victoria coach station, for example, one would find grounds for criticism.

  903
  Surely, if this service can be developed by the introduction of private sector funds to provide better facilities to make travel for people on inter-city routes on the national express network more comfortable, pleasant, convenient and efficient, we should consider doing so. I can see no problem in doing that. I also find it interesting that the chairman of NBC, Lord Shepherd, seems to welcome the part of the Bill which allows involvement of private capital in the improvement of passenger facilities. If there is some measure of agreement from the chairman of NBC on some aspects of the introduction of private capital, I find it odd that hon. Members on the Labour Benches have been so critical, as have some of my hon. Friends.
  With regard to the principles of the matter, I find it strange that I, along with most of my hon. Friends, have been pressed by constituents and party workers to explain why we have not achieved more in denationalisation of our industries. I answer partly by saying, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and the Secretary of State for Transport, that in transport the aim of denationalisation, stemming just from ideological principles, which are based on good, sound economic practice, but from the reality of the need to introduce new dimensions in terms of development of companies by private sector cash involvement, as well as better stability of jobs, has been a guiding light in Government policy, designed to achieve a shift back from the public sector to the private sector. This is the third Transport Bill in three years that involves the denationalisation of unnecessary parts of the transport system—unnecessary in the sense that they are nationalised when they could be operated with private capital. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look further. As he knows, I usually press him at Question Time to consider matters further, and to look for innovations of all sorts that will help the country, employees and the customer.
  I have not yet heard any hon. Member mention the customer. How does he feel about all these points that have been made so far? If the customer feels that private capital will be of benefit to the National Bus Company—and he is the customer, the man for whom the services are being provided—should we not recognise that he has a say in the matter? In the end, it is his money and his taxes that will sustain the enterprise. If there is a viable alternative, should we not encourage it?
  As is the way with monopolies, which are subsidised because of their nationalised nature, we come to the point of efficiency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), I have a high regard for the National Bus Company. In my period as secretary of the Conservative Party's transport committee, and subsequently, I have taken a great interest in its affairs. I find that many of its people locally and nationally are excellent. But any enterprise, however good its people, must recognise that any protection from competition is not, in the end, a good thing. Therefore, I congratulate the National Bus Company, whose chairman, in answer to my letter of a year and a half ago on the 1981 Transport Bill, said that the National Bus Company would react to competition, and that when the traffic commissioners and aspects of transport licensing were liberalised, NBC would react and compete. It has done so.
  904
  It is fascinating to see that in the last three months of 1980 the mileage increased by 2 per cent. while passengers carried increased by 16.6 per cent. I press my right hon. Friend, or my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, to give us more figures later to show that NBC has responded to the challenge. With private sector fund involvement it can continue to do so even better.
  Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman laid great store on the philosophy of the private sector and the privatisation objectives of the Government. Is he not aware—does he not read the papers—that there is a history, particularly in the past few years, of the concentration of public money into private industries where discipline has been wanting? Surely he must balance his argument fairly in the light of recent history. Public money has tended to go into private enterprise to support it rather than the other way round.
  Mr. Mills: I am not sure which enterprises the hon. Gentleman means. Perhaps if I give way again he could be more specific.
  Mr. Leadbitter: British Leyland.
  Mr. Mills: I wondered whether he meant that. However, I am a pragmatist. One has to recognise that if one is in direct competition with companies abroad that are substantially State subsidised, particularly in certain aspects of their work, such as the development of new cars, this is extremely intensive capital development. Our companies must have some help.
  If the hon. Gentleman is criticising this Government for being mean and miserly, he should look at the amounts of money being given to British Leyland. The point that I am making is not that we should not help those concerns that need State money, legitimately and justifiably, but that we should not continue to run nationalised concerns that could quite adequately attract private capital.
  For example, following the arguments put forward by hon. Members on the Labour Benches, I find it strange that Gleneagles should have been a State-owned hotel. I see no logic in that. I use the example of Gleneagles because it happens to be an attractive name and a hotel that many hon. Members from Scotland will know. Having been born in Scotland, I appreciate it. The performance of the rest of the British Rail hotel chain showed clearly that, while other chains with access to private capital moved ahead and achieved a greater market share of the available hotel room places, British Rail hotels, because they had insufficient capital, did not do so.
  Hon. Members on the Labour Benches will argue that taxpayers' money should have been put in. But why do that when private enterprise capital is available and could be used? We have a mixed economy and the change in the National Bus Company is a demonstration of the mixed nature of our policy towards nationalised concerns.
  Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman asked for some examples. Before nationalisation, the Conservative Government, under the Heath Administration, helped Rolls-Royce. What about British Leyland? Grants given under the Industry Act 1972, sections 8 and 7, go to a large number of private companies. Many of those particularly large grants of public money result from requests from Conservative Members, who go to the Secretary of State for Industry and ask for the money for the industries in their constituencies.
  Mr. Mills: I am sure that you will be unhappy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I stray too far from the bounds of this debate to a general debate on nationalisation. The House tempts me to recall that in the West Midlands debate I spoke lengthily of the problems of the West Midlands and criticised heavily the regional aid policy adopted by both Labour and Conservative Governments for allowing section 7 grants to go only to assisted areas. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not be sidetracked into a detailed argument about nationalisation.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman referred to publicly owned industries. Will he explain how it is possible for a privately owned company to accept its social obligations and cross-subsidise services that are in the public interest?
  Mr. Mills: I am tempted by the hon. Gentleman to recall the remarks made in the debates on what become the Transport Act 1980. When we deregulated various aspects of the work of traffic commissioners we looked carefully into the principle of cross-subsidisation. Governments of all political philosophies accept the need to subsidise aspects of transport policy because otherwise, because of their social nature, certain services would not work.
  The argument develops. Should one cover up inefficiencies by the use of cross-subsidy, or should one recognise that certain services are socially essential and provide for them? That is partly so with British Rail. Should one recognise that other aspects of the company could be better developed through other means and take them out? That does not mean that one will refuse to become involved publicly with essential social services, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) often argues, it places a heavier burden on one's ability to justify those services, and, therefore, the efficiency with which they are run.
  One could follow the hon. Gentleman's argument and say that if we nationalised industry throughout the country we would be constantly cross-subsidising on a major scale. I see no problem in attracting private capital to aspects of the National Bus Company. I should have thought that it would help not only the customer but the bona fide employees to be offered a share scheme, as well as
  "the wives, husbands, widows, widowers or children or stepchildren under the age of eighteen of such employees or former employees."
  That aspect should have been recognised by hon.Members on both sides of the House as being a suitable and beneficial innovation.
  If the Secretary of State is successful in attracting private capital through a substantial employee shareholding, as in the management buy-out proposals for the National Freight Company, it will be a substantial move forward for democracy. I hope that the House will forgive me for going into detail on those principles and for speaking at length on them. There is a need to adapt to change. I congratulate the National Bus Company on its ability to recognise competition and to compete. That will be benefited by the attraction of private capital.
  The privatisation of testing stations is a controversial subject. I wonder whether any right hon. or hon. Members have driven a heavy vehicle through one of the testing stations.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours indicated assent.
  Mr. Mills: I see that at least one hon. Gentleman has had that experience, as I have.
  906
  As a private enterprise employee and someone who believed in the system, I felt that there could be many improvements. In saying that I do not denigrate the excellent work that is done by the employees. I was extremely impressed by the high standards that I was required to meet when I went through the test. If that operation were run by private enterprise, it could operate more efficiently while still achieving the same high standards of safety. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says in the Bill that the number of staff employed could be reduced by about 900.
  In our constituencies at weekends we are pressed, not only on the subject of denationalisation but the reduction of the numbers of staff employed in the Civil Service I wonder whether that could be done without a fall in quality. I share the concern that has been expressed about quality. As the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) has said on several occasions, the Government have gone a long way towards meeting the initial inhibitions, legitimately expressed by the haulage concerns.
  I refer to the heartfelt, sincere and interesting comments made by many of the members of the Select Committee on Transport. One or two are here. The Select Committee system that we have established in the House has an important role to play. It is wrong if we ignore that. The Select Committee has fulfilled its functions more than admirably. It has given a report to the Secretary of State obliging him not only to change his policy to meet some of the criticisms that have been made, but to consult in detail the haulage organisations such as the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and others. If we are to say that the Select Committee system is absolute but do not recognise the dynamism of change, that would be absurd.
  If the Select Committee has made an excellent report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and the hon. Member for Leicester, East have persuasively argued, is it not right, when the Government recognise the key factors in the change proposed, that we should say that the system has worked and that the Government, having offered some proposals for change in their policy, should now proceed? There is no detriment to the correct operation of testing stations with the controls outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  There has been hardly any mention of controls, the right of appeal and the mechanisms for ensuring that the correct quality of testing is applied. I press my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary to be more specific about how those controls will operate and how he believes the changes that have been made to the policy will meet the objections of the haulage industry, which must react to its customers.
  One of the most interesting parts of the Bill is that dealing with fixed penalties. I was honoured to be asked to serve on the Committee that considered the previous Bill. A few hon. Members who served on the Committee are present. We had an interesting discussion on the change from the old totting up system to the points system. Although we disagreed on a number of the details arid technicalities, we agreed that there was a substantial shift towards greater justice, simplicity and ease of operation for the motorist.
  The fixed penalty is an extension of that. In Committee I suggested to the then Secretary of State that it might be

  907
  of benefit to see the fixed penalty as a direct consequence of the totting-up system, to help motorists who have problems with the present system.
  I suggest to Opposition Members who have been approached by constituents or who have had experience in the matter that the ease and simplicity of being able to accept the fixed penalty system on the spot would be of considerable importance not just to motorists in general but to business motorists, whose time and energy would otherwise be devoted to fighting court cases. Through the measure they are not prevented from fighting the court cases should they wish to challenge the charge. It is difficult to find the best way of running the system, especially with regard to the showing of the licence and endorsement points.
  It was common ground in the Committee that certain offences should attract a sufficiently serious penalty not only in monetary but in endorsement terms by way of the number of points given to reinforce the importance of the penalty to the motorist. It would be hardly worth moving the fixed penalty to offences that are not endorsable. However, if one seeks to apply fixed offences for endorsable items, the mere fact that those items attract points means that at some stage the chap has to give up his licence for it to be endorsed. Thus, he has to carry his licence. I see no problem in that. I carry my licence all the time, as I am sure do most right hon. and hon. Members, except—as, I think, was said by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness—when it is away, force majeure, at Swansea.
  I should like my hon. and learned Friend to comment on two matters in this connection. First, how can the matter be resolved if the licence is away? People who change address have to send their licences to Swansea. Mine took about a month to come back. So if, for reasons beyond our normal control—change of address, renewal or loss of licence—one cannot produce the licence, how will the policeman react at the point of offence?
  Secondly, I was interested in a reply from my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary when I recently queried the efficiency of Swansea. He gave me some hope when he said in his reply that the Department of Transport was looking at new computer systems for Swansea. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Obviously Opposition Members have not been completely convinced about computer efficiency by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will comment on his plans to ensure that Swansea becomes more efficient and reduces the time that it takes.
  I welcome the introduction of the use of points into the system of fixed offences. In Standing Committee, when we discussed the number of points for each offence, it seemed better that low-level offences which did not attract social criticism or the real possibilities of accidents should be easily and quickly dealt with. I am glad that savings here could involve 600,000 cases and about £3 million in revenue.
  Recently I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). Having visited that town many years ago, I was reminded once again of its gracious nature and history. I was therefore interested when he asked whether clause 45 would produce any benefits in the control of heavy lorries. As my hon. Friend discussed the wider aspects of heavy lorries, I shall
  908
  say a word in that connection, but only in relation to clause 45. As my right hon. Friend said, this applies only to renewal of licences, so it does not affect the future in general of the heavy lorry.
  In clause 45, my right hon. Friend has the chance to put pressure on civilising the lorry. We both wish to reduce the lorry's impact on the environment. I thank him for his written replies to my questions. I asked him whether the Government were committed to ensuring that industry took the right steps to make lorries quieter, cleaner and safer. His response was that his Department was in touch with all the principal manufacturers, and he said that there were a number of promising developments for improvements in environmental and safety standards. He also told me that his Department was already involved in discussions with manufacturers on a major research programme that will contribute to the quiet heavy vehicle—the QHV90 project. He said that the Department of Industry and his own officials were developing further comprehensive proposals for early discussion with the vehicle industry. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds is not as perturbed as he was earlier. Even the small step in clause 45 is backed up by substantial efforts by my right hon. Friend to ensure that the civilising process for the heavy lorry is not just talk. I hope that the efforts of my right hon. Friend and officials at the Department of Industry will bear fruit.
  It appears that there will be interesting debates in Committee on this tripartite Bill that has raised the temperatures of hon. and right hon. Members on all sides. In my view, its provisions will help the customers of buses, provide a mechanism towards democracy, and provide opportunities for private capital in place of public capital. It will bring innovations in control in heavy vehicle testing and reductions in private sector operations. For the motorist, it will be another step among the many steps taken by the Government towards a fairer and more simple form of justice.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The public and those who work in transport industries have an increasing feeling of despair. We seem to approach this major national problem of transport in fits and starts, in accordance with the winds of change, Secretaries of State or the pedantry of the Department itself. It is a sickening indictment of the House of Commons and the Government when evidence is given to Select Committees by men of great excellence and professional standing, whose objective approach to transport always seeks the wellbeing of the economy—transport is just as wealth-producing in economic terms as is manufacturing industry—and after all that the Government say only "The report was very interesting. It has added something to the debate".
  There is one thing that can be said about the debate, and that is that mediocrity in a debate usually comes from the Front Bench. We know the ineffectiveness of past Secretaries of State of both Governments who, when they speak without a brief, are embarrassments. The trouble is that hon. Members are not prepared to face properly and honestly, in the name of those who send us here, the difficulties that Departments impose upon us.
  I know officials of the National Bus Company very well. I travel with them on my way to this place. I have not heard one of them complain about the industry. They

  909
  want a transport infrastructure that will serve the conurbations, townships and rural areas. All this fiddle faddle about the nice, purposeful and useful notion of looking for private money is nonsense. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) got his philosophies mixed up because of his political prejudice. He was not honest enough to say that, in the mixed economy that we now have, it is inevitable that politcal prejudice will flounder. If one sticks dogmatically to the philosophy of the mixed economy one must accept that public money has to be pumped in to save essential parts of private industry.
  I would vote to support any private industry with public money providing that I was satisfied that it was in the national interest. I hope that Conservative Members will be good enough to admit that the denigration of nationalised and publicly owned industries is not a commendable approach.
  I should have liked the Bill to deal with road and rail, so that the House could have discussed those two matters together for once. Hon. Members could have talked about co-ordination and integration, about servicing our townships and conurbations, and about making some sense out of the imbalance of freight distribution.
  Last June, a report was commissioned on British Rail and work was carried out by commendable university people. They came to the conclusion that the British transport worker had a productivity record that was higher than average for the whole of Europe. They showed that British Rail had the lowest investment record in Europe, and that Government support for British Rail was the worst in Europe, with the exception of Denmark.
  The same argument applies to the National Bus Company. Management and personnel in the National Bus Company are of a high standard. It is a tragedy that the Bill is a pot pourri of subject headings that confuses the most intelligent of readers. The Secretary of State is full of political dogma. He has come only recently from the Department of Energy and he is now the Department of Transport's parrot. How can one read and consider the problems of transport logically when the Bill jumps from part I, on the privatisation of the National Bus Company, to the testing of vehicles and the privatisation proposals, to fixed penalties, and from that to operational centres? The Bill reflects the fact that Government Departments always come to the House with a mixed, confused package that never reaches the nub of the problem of transport in Britain.
  It is important to tell the Secretary of State that we are not amused by such a ragbag of confusion. The Select Committee heard excellent professional witnesses. The Members of the Select Committee carry considerable experience of transport, and they brought their responsibilities, as representatives of the people, to the forum of the House. However, the Secretary of State put all that on one side. He said that he did not agree with them. He said that he had been in office for 12 weeks and knew all about the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept that, it follows that he is not the master in his own house but a messenger boy for the Department. He is either one or the other.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) spoke succintly about the testing of vehicles. He asked what useful purpose would be served by the provision and I could not have thought of a better way of making that point. He said that those who use the centres pay for them, and that they cost taxpayers nothing. However, the
  910
  Secretary of State is supposed to know all about testing stations. He may gain some profound knowledge years from now, but at present his political determination to butter up all the Government's notions about privatisation has led him to remove the benefits that taxpayers and operators enjoy. He wishes to change the standard arrangements for testing, which have completely upheld community and transport interests, which have always been efficient and which have cost the taxpayer nothing. He says that we should privatise and that we should accept the expense of appointing people to monitor the private sector.
  Is that not an awful condemnation of the Secretary of State's irresponsible actions, of which he should be thoroughly ashamed? This Bill is as daft as last year's Bill. Whether hon. Members believe it or not, that Bill sought to privatise a little pier and boat on Lake Windermere. That was the type of thing that occupied our time.
  I agree with the principle behind the fixed penalties in part III. Indeed, the House may well agree upon that principle. Our courts are congested because of motoring offences that could adequately be dealt with in the way suggested. However, I must offer a word of caution. I hope that the Committee will consider carefully the mechanics of the matter. It is a hard fact of life that during a recession the two things that are being most regularly built are law courts——
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Myths.
  Mr. Leadbitter: ——and houses for battered wives. Something strange seems to be happening to society. Before the very eyes of Members of Parliament and leaders a cancer is creeping through our social structure. We are building the best law courts because Bills such as this, with their economic rigidities and prejudices, have screwed up the country and many people find that their family lives have been destroyed. The law courts are full and we are building houses for battered wives.
  Hon. Members must know that most of the revenue used for building law courts comes from motorists' fines and local authorities. Therefore, there should be some regulatory control over the police so that their exuberance does not get out of hand and so that their promotional propensities do not excite them too much. The motorist has suffered enough. He is one of the biggest taxpayers. He pays a tax on his car, on his petrol, on his oil and he pays road fund tax. Of the £6,000 million that is raised from road fund tax, hardly a half—I do not have the exact figure—is spent on road maintenance and road structure.
  The House should accept the principle of fixed penalties but time should be spent in Committee to ensure that the regulatory determinations to make it work are fair to the motorist and control some of the matters that hon. Members have mentioned earlier. For example, the surrender of a licence is a serious matter. There might be a way in which that could be overcome. The present system is that if a motorist does not have his licence with him he must lodge it at the police station within five days. It might be better if that system could be upheld, and that instead of licences being surrendered to the policeman the policeman could give the motorist some other form. If an endorsable offence is involved, the licence could be transferred from the police station—not from the policeman—to the clerk of the court. That might be a way

  911
  to deal with the matter. I suggest that the detail of this matter is not appropriate for the Second Reading debate on the Bill.
  The Secretary of State would have been wiser if he had taken counsel and brought fixed penalties forward in a separate Bill. That would have given greater time in Committee to deal with the type of problem to which I have referred. I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East that in parts I and II the Bill has all the appearance of Government policy, while parts III and IV are little pieces of sugar to sweeten it. I hope that the Secretary of State's major contribution to the Department of Transport—even if he failed in the Department of Energy—is to try to convert it. The Department has an awful reputation. In my lifetime, no Transport Minister has been a success, because the Department has always managed to swallow him up.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: We have heard a wide-ranging speech from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). There have been a number of such speeches but the hon. Gentleman was the only one to have expressed an interest in and said that he was looking forward to serving on the Standing Committee of the Bill.
  The Bill is not exciting. The hon. Gentleman was right when he suggested that it was almost a miscellaneous provisions Bill. For that reason, there are detailed questions on which I seek the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary. I wish to say a brief word about the general issues.
  I was surprised to see in clause 6 that special endeavours are being made to exempt from stamp duty transactions that arise out of the privatisation of the National Bus Company and parts of it. I support wholeheartedly moves towards privatisation, but it would be wrong in principle if we were to give some sort of exemption to previously State-owned industries that was not available to private firms in exactly the same position. It appears that the Government are taking special steps to exempt the carve-up of the National Bus Company and other such companies from stamp duty. Why is this being done? Would it not be right and proper to treat them in exactly the same way as any other private company engaging in the dispersal or the selling off of shares?
  Secondly, will the regulation that has been recently passed in the House of Commons about the transfer of undertakings apply to disposals of subsidiaries or newly created subsidiaries of the National Bus Company? There has been a greater interest in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 since Mr. Clive Jenkins woke up to the potential of the new regulations. The regulations change greatly the law on disposals, transfers and take-overs. They place enormous obligations on the new purchaser of the company. Will the regulations apply to publicly owned transfers as well as to privately owned transfers? It was not clear in the regulations and I wish to ask the Minister whether, when we are seeing the partial or total selling off and change of ownerships of parts of the National Bus Company or its subsidiaries, the regulations will apply.
  Thirdly, I have a detailed question about a strange clause to which no one appears to have referred. Clause
  912
  48 gives the Secretary of State for Transport unusual rights to direct harbour authorities to do what they must to maintain national defence. We have seen suggestions in defence legislation that the Secretary of State for Defence should be able to direct people to prepare the country for its defence in a time of war. It is most unusual to see in a Transport Bill that the Secretary of State has the full power under clause 48 to tell harbour authorities what they must do for national defence. There is no indication of the type of instructions that can be given. It could be an instruction that ships should be deployed in a certain way. It could be an instruction to dig deep holes and to erect defences in a harbour. The range is limitless.
  I am amazed that the provision is in the Bill, but even more amazing is that there is no penalty for noncompliance. We know that there are efficient and well-run harbour authorities. There are also some small and strange harbour authorities, which are run by unusual people. I suggest that some of the harbour authorities that are run by small committees of unusual people who have strong local interests might object strongly to or resent advice from the Secretary of State on the use of their undertakings to meet the needs of national defence. I am sure that the Minister will say, as all Ministers do, that he is sure that he will receive full co-operation from all harbour authorities in those matters. I wish to know what the penalty for non-compliance is in this unusual clause and what would happen under clause 48 if there was a breakdown in understanding and communication between the Secretary of State for Transport, exercising his defence role, and a small harbour authority which thought that the advice that it was given would, if implemented, damage its business.
  I also wish to ask the Minister whether the compensation proposals in clause 48 will give the arbitrator the right to award compensation not only for the effects of the changes proposed by the Minister, but for the consequential damage to the business of the harbour by what the Minister has directed the authority to do.
  My next question concerns clause 45. I recall a legal ruling in 1975 which made it difficult for authorities licensing transport operators to take environmental factors into account. The Government appear wisely to have taken action to ensure that in considering applications for an operator's licence they can take such factors into account. That appears to be a significant attempt by the Minister to control or civilise the heavy lorry, especially since we are to allow larger lorries with heavier weights on our roads.
  I put to the Minister a simple question to which I hope the answer will be "Yes". Does clause 45 give the public any greater rights with regard to transport operators? It appears to relate to the establishment of the premises from which the business will be run or where the lorries will be located. Will the Minister confirm that clause 45 will enable members of the public who perhaps live in the same road as a transport operator to make representations to the licensing authority that a licence should not be given? It appears to be a major extension of the public's right to control their environment. I am sure that all hon. Members have constituents who object strongly to large lorries being parked outside their homes and clogging up the streets. There is no doubt that some transport operators operate from premises that are utterly unsuitable for that type of business. I welcome the Minister's initiative in that respect.

  913
  Having travelled from Cambridge today and twice passed through the Dartford tunnel, which is in the constituency so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), I must express the hope that if the Government are concerned, as I know they are, to control or curb heavy lorries, they will, either through this Bill or some other, carefully consider how repairs and maintenance of some motorways are undertaken. We have some splendid roads. I travelled on the M11 from Cambridge. That is a good road, but there was appalling congestion on two short stretches because maintenance work reduced traffic to only one lane. The Dartford tunnel is used a great deal, but for a year there has been terrible congestion simply because the road works on one side have reduced three lanes to one. It would help the travelling public enormously, especially in view of the special problems created by heavy lorries, if steps could be taken to ensure that regular maintenance resulted in three lanes being reduced to two lanes rather than one.
  While I appreciate what the Minister is doing in clause 45, I hope that he will arrange, either by an amendment to the Bill or by a special study, some means of reducing the problems faced by the travelling public, especially in relation to the extension of the use of heavy lorries. Perhaps he will also consider whether road maintenance and repairs could be carried out in such a way as to create fewer problems for the public.
  The new fixed penalty arrangements appeal to the majority of hon. Members, although there are differing views. Views have been expressed about the special position in Scotland, but few people object in principle to the fixed penalty arrangements. Can the Minister give some guidance as to how they will be applied to the increasing number of foreign tourists who come to Britain and use hire cars on our roads? There is, of course, a clause dealing with the special problems of fixed penalties for hire cars, but what is to be done if the official notices provided for in the Bill have to be sent to people resident abroad, maybe tourists from Italy, Turkey, Israel, America or Pakistan? Does the Minister propose to send official forms in English by surface post? If it is proposed to send a large number of forms to a great many people, I see no difficulty in respect of Aberdeen, Hartlepool, Dartford or Southend, but, given that many foreigners are caught speeding in hire cars, how will the official notification provided for in the Bill be sent to foreign residents who may not speak English, and some of whom may have no regular postal service? That is a minor point, but it is the kind of minor point which could create major problems in the future.
  On two general issues, I am delighted that we have the fixed penalty procedure, which should reduce the load on the courts. It has been estimated that perhaps 600,000 cases will be removed from the courts.
  Of course, the work involved in some convictions is already limited because a letter is simply written to the court, but even written pleas involve some administration and court time. I hope that the fixed penalty procedure will not only give the courts more time and scope to deal with what I regard as more serious crimes, but that it will enable the Government, with the new facility available to the courts, perhaps to take a fresh look at the way in which they are tackling the problem of increasing violence.
  A general point of great importance relates to privatisation of the NBC. We have heard two very convincing speeches to the effect that this is a move in the
  914
  wrong direction. I have a special interest in this, as in Southend we have taken a number of initiatives in privatisation. The arguments against those initiatives were exactly the same as those advanced today against privatisation of the NBC and some of its subsidiaries We were told that there would be no great saving, that the service to the public would be reduced and that, by and large, it would not be a good deal.
  Having experienced that major move towards privatisation, I can say in all sincerity that, despite some of the rather silly campaigns conducted by some Left-wing organisations and by the Socialist Workers Party, any resident of Southend or anyone employed by the company will agree that in Southend the scheme has been a complete success. The facts and figures are available for all to see. Southend is one of the few boroughs which managed to cut its rate burden last year. Rates were reduced by more than 1p in the pound. A major contribution to that was certainty the move towards privatisation, not just of our cleansing service but of many other services. The basic rate of those employed in the company has risen by about £30 per week. That is a very substantial wage increase. If additional wages can be paid, it is certainly good not just for the community but for those employed by the business. We have also heard many comments from the public that a better service is being provided by a more modern organisation with more modern equipment.
  When the proposal to start on the road to privatisation was put forward in Southend many people and organisations said that it was dangerous, that it could lead to a breakdown in services and that it would involve no saving. This year, we have saved about £500,000 in a very limited move towards privatisation. Those who doubt the Government's proposals for the National Bus Company should know that all the evidence shows that when private capital is introduced into a publicly provided service, not only is a better service provided for the consumer, but more money is available for investment and, by and large, it is a better deal for those employed in the organisation.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there not another parallel? Were not certain refuse collection services withdrawn from certain people in Southend? The parallel drawn by the Opposition is that in the case of the National Bus Company additional services will be withdrawn. Will the hon. Gentleman address his comments to the services withdrawn in both instances?
  Mr. Taylor: The services were not withdrawn. Business and commerce were given the opportunity to employ anybody they wished to clear refuse. In other words, they were not obliged to go to the council, to Exclusive Cleaners or to anyone else. They had freedom of choice to go anywhere. I believe that a similar move in relation to the National Bus Company could be of great benefit to the public.
  Those who are concerned about the move not benefiting the public should consider the examples of privatisation so far. Even the great pier at Southend has been privatised, and a private operator now pays rent to the council. The cliff lift, a service which made a substantial loss, is now also provided by private enterprise and rent is paid for what used to cost the ratepayers a great deal of money. I should like to think that I am not unduly dogmatic, but there is evidence that privatisation works for the benefit of the consumer and also benefits the workers of an organisation.

  915
  My next point is desperately important to the National Bus Company. When we bring about privatisation, it means that an organisation can attract capital on the merits of its performance, and not simply as part of a general horse-trading exercise on demands for capital from different organisations.
  Nothing must be more frustrating for somebody who works for a local authority department, an agency of the Government or a nationalised undertaking to know that there is something he could buy that would improve the service and make it more efficient, but he is not allowed to spend the money because of some direct or indirect restraint from the Government or local authority.
  The Bill will do the National Bus Company immense good if it can then free itself completely from control by the Treasury on capital spending. Many people in nationalised undertakings say that it would be much better if they had the freedom to raise their own capital. However, so long as they are financed by Government and the deficits are made up, that simply cannot happen. On the other hand, if they can become private organizations—as in the case of the Southend cleansing operation—they then need much more equipment, which is provided by the Brengreen organisation on the basis of the exercise's profitability, and not on what the Southend or Essex county councils can provide as capital expenditure.
  Therefore, despite the doubts expressed, I hope that hon. Gentlemen accept this will be a good experiment which will bring a better service to the public and ensure more modernisation and investment. I urge the Secretary of State to disregard the doubters on both sides of the House and to press ahead with this substantial move towards more privatisation.
  Although my right hon. Friend has only recently been appointed as Secretary of State for Transport, he is carrying on the fine tradition of his predecessor in trying to introduce privatisation wherever possible. It is strange that we are discussing a Bill about buses and so on at a time when there is a damaging and dreadful rail strike. I hope that the new Secretary of State will seriously consider the possibility of at least a pilot experiment in privatisation in British Rail's services, now that we have embarked on the consideration of the National Bus Company.
  Despite all that is said, the problems that are presently insoluble could be resolved pretty smartly and quickly in the national interest if we were prepared to have an experiment in privatisation. I am not suggesting that we should take one of the golden lines which are very profitable, or an appalling line. Let us simply take one area of British Rail, for example, the Southend to Fenchurch Street line. That would be a good case because it is compact and, by privatisation, we could discover whether a better service could be provided for the consumer as has been the case of privatisation in other areas.
  In exchange for my wholehearted support for the splendid Bill proposed by the Secretary of State, I ask whether he can at least give me an assurance that he will seriously consider the possibility of an experiment in privatisation of British Rail's services in a contained area. Will he consider the possibility of that experiment on the Fenchurch Street to Southend line?
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Having served on past committees on Transport Bills and in related Standing Committees, I cannot resist the feeling of deja vu on Second Reading of a Transport Bill. It has all the same ingredients: a bit of privatisation, this, that and a bit of road safety tacked on the end as a sweetener.
  I start by mentioning a rather different priority than that expressed by some hon. Members this evening—the privatisation theme. The public sector has been nibbled away for no good reason by many Bills. I served on the Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill which, you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was aimed at privatising British Airways. That has not yet occurred and we still wait with great interest to see whether it is about to be sold off to a good bidder. Another example, perhaps, is Sir Freddie Laker. Other privatisations have occurred under different Transport Bills.
  This Bill reviews the Government's general philosophy. I am reminded that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) earlier said that he was a pragmatist. I also pride myself on being a pragmatist who considers the facts of a situation and makes a decision on them at that time.
  Over the past two and a half years we have seen a succession of highly ideological Bills, containing no pragmatism. They will do much damage because they have not shown a pragmatic comprehension of the economy and national problems or reacted in time. Many Conservative Members feel the same. The Administration are papering over some serious cracks in the definition of pragmatism and how it should work its way through to Government policy.
  The previous Secretary of State for Transport said that the Government should not be involved in activities which the private sector could carry out just as well. Being a pragmatist, I suppose that that is where I differ from both the philosophy behind the Bill, if there is one, and the Government's ideology. The best economy is a mixed economy, where the excesses of private enterprise can be held in check by a public stake and the excesses of the public sector can be held in check by competition.
  That sort of pragmatism is the way ahead for a healthy economy. When considering the Bill, we can see that it is ideology that wins out against pragmatism. No better example of ideology rather than pragmatism is to be found than the Bill's decision to take into private ownership
  "testing 'centres for goods and public services vehicles".
  Considering the background of the Select Committee on Transport, the evidence has been good. Again, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, the Select Committee's views are not necessarily holy writ, but they might at least be considered. The evidence produced by that Select Committee created tremendous feeling in the road haulage industry. It felt that no change was better than some change in the direction the Government suggested. That is a retrograde step and I hope that the Government still have time to reconsider it.
  Even if they did not do that—I am a realist in these matters rather than too much of an optimist—let us not see, as we have so often, the main benefits of privatisation, with one exception that I can think of, losing to what I call the "big battalions" and the small man being frozen out. The Government could do more for the co-operative principle—which they say they support—by giving the

  917
  vehicle testing centres the opportnity to join co-operatives instead of being given away to the big chains and private enterprises in the transport industry.
  I welcome broadly the principle of fixed penalties. Whoever serves on the Standing Committee will have some hard work to do in that respect. Our experience on the Transport Act showed that flexibility in negotiation and compromise on similar matters lead to a better Bill. I hope that this will happen again.
  The Government accept the tremendous difficulty of administering a fixed penalty system, but nevertheless intend to push on with it to a much greater extent. That is a paradox to which I hope the Minister will refer when he replies. 1 hope that the Government will explain how the Bill tightens up and improves the fixed penalties system.
  I have some misgivings—perhaps not to the same extent as some hon. Members—on holding licences and giving them up. I err on the side of making the carrying of licences compulsory. I have never been too worried about the demand that people should take the common precaution of looking ahead to the possibility of being stopped by the police. However, the Under-Secretary will no doubt take the point—I believe he was, and may still be, a practising barrister—that there may be problems if policemen can stop a suspected offender to scrutinise his licence. The policeman can look at the endorsements on the licence and consider what action to take. In a sense he will be acting in a judicial way on the spot. There are real dangers especially when it is known that there are, in any case, problems with licences.
  I have always believed that endorsements should be wiped out, free of charge, when their time limit has expired. I also believe that when a licence is returned to Swansea—as mine was recently—the old endorsements should be wiped out. I am afraid that this did not happen in the case of my own licence. I refer only to one small speeding endorsement. I assure the House hastily of the minor nature of the offence.
  This is a serious problem. I do not object to policemen scrutinising licences, but it would be wrong if they made an evaluation on steps that could lead to a lesser or more severe penalty. I hope that the problem can be sorted out in Committee.
  As regards the miscellaneous provisions, I am a realist. I believe that the Government have introduced the measures on the parking of lorries as a sop, a tiny weight, to balance their decision on the Armitage report on the introduction of heavier lorries. Few of my constituents who are persecuted by heavy lorries will be enamoured of that sort of legislation if they are at all realistic. The Government made a bad decision on heavy lorries and this part of the Bill will not wipe that out.
  The House will know that the fixed penalty system is a hobby-horse of mine, but I shall not pursue it or flog it for too long. There are serious problems involving road safety. My understanding is that certain infringements will be treated as minor offences to be dealt with by fixed penalties. Three offences are ignoring traffic signals when red, disregarding a school traffic crossing patrol, and leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position. I do not take the hard line position of the AA and RAC that speeding fits into a fixed penalty system. I am not worried to the same extent about the knock-on effect on endorsements, although I should like to see them worked through. I do not regard these three offences as minor. They are a
  918
  regular cause of death and injury. One needs only to consider the dreadful accidents that have occurred when people using legitimate crossing areas have been knocked down. To ignore a school traffic crossing is a very serious offence. There have also been some awful accidents involving motor cyclists when vehicles have been left in a dangerous position. A dangerously placed vehicle can result in the most horrific injuries.
  I conclude, therefore, on a different note from some of my hon. Friends. This is a familar Bill. I am not happy with the beginning. I am not too pleased with the middle. Whether something can be made of the final parts will be seen when the Bill emerges from Committee.
  8.16 pm
  Sir Albert Costain: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman). I had the pleasure of sitting on the Public Accounts Committee with the hon. Gentleman but I have not previously heard him in full song in the Chamber. I have sat through the debate since it started, apart from a short break when I had to see a Secretary of State over a constituency matter. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) objected that the Bill was a pot pourri. One might criticise the fact that the measure is not called the Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I can see no objection to a Bill that deals with separate items. How else can the Secretary of State legislate for these different items? Does the hon. Member want four separate Bills on four separate days? I hope not.
  There has been some criticism about the privatisation of the testing facilities of motor vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) spoke of the danger that private firms might expand in areas where they would spoil the environment. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the process under which planning permission is given. There is not only the matter of the depot itself but also the large number of lorries that draw up and wait outside.
  Many Labour Members take the view that inspection or testing should be carried out by civil servants. I wonder whether they realise that the most important testing in the building industry—that of high value cement—has since 1904 been carried out be a private firm. That successful firm, whose name is as well known as a hallmark of silver, has expanded overseas. As a private operation, it has been able to expand its exports. I have never heard any criticism of its testing. Indeed, some products are sent from overseas for testing. The original founder of the firm, long since dead, earned a tremendous reputation.
  The testing of motor vehicles provides an opportunity to build up a business with export potential. I inspected in my constituency last week a new device that can be attached to a lorry to test whether it is overloaded. It costs only £39. There is no doubt that if the device is further developed and sufficient sales are made, the price will be reduced even below that figure. If the police had this equipment they would be able to test on the road a vehicle. Overloading is a very serious problem in Folkestone because of the number of lorries from overseas.
  I am pleased to see the restrictions that the Minister will be able to apply in relation to parking offences. I receive many complaints from constituents about the nuisance caused by large lorries that are parked outside their houses

  919
  and that start early in the morning. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that if a person wants to carry on a transport business he should do it from proper premises.
  I welcome the proposal for fixed penalties, with one reservation. The problem is that there will not be much, if any, publicity when an offence has been committed. One of the benefits of the magistrates court dealing with these offences is that they may be reported in the press. This reminds other motorists of how easily crimes may be committed, particularly when some of their friends are involved. I do not think the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) agrees with what I am saying. He is always complaining about the number of lorries without licences in his constituency. Would he not agree that if there were more publicity through people being taken to the magistrates courts, more people would buy licences? We have seen this happen with television licences. If a detector van appears in an area there is a rush to buy television licences. I would have thought that if a few people were fined heavily for not having licences it would help.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that millions of pounds' worth of fines will never be paid? Does he think that Mr. Smith, Mr. Black or Mr. Brown, who does not pay his road fund licence, who does not pay for his MOT test and who does not worry about a parking offence is going to worry about this? Those people will not pay. When it is taken up with the police, they are overstretched or underpowered, or they cannot or will not take any action. What will happen? Of course, people like the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) will pay up. All those who paid up in the past will pay up. But the bloke who has never paid up still will not pay up.
  Sir A. Costain: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill. The interesting thing is that the motorist will be confronted by a policeman and he will have to pay on the spot.
  Mr. Lewis: No, he will not.
  Sir A. Costain: We will let the Minister sort that out when he sums up.
  There are a number of traffic offences that are not properly policed. I come to London most mornings. There is a bus lane at Chelsea Bridge. The fine for an ordinary motorist using the bus lane may be as much as £100 and his licence may be endorsed. Morning after morning one sees cars in that bus lane.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is proving my point.
  Sir A. Costain: I may have proved my point before I finish. About once a month there is a blitz by the police and they catch two or three people. There is a good deal of effective publicity in the local newspapers. An offender may be fined £100 and have his licence endorsed. If he does it twice he may lose his licence altogether.
  I want particularly to draw attention to the provisions for allowing development of National Bus Company property. When the original railway stations were built in the last century, shops were built around them. I do not know one town or village which now has a respectable parade of shops alongside the railway stations. One has only to think of Charing Cross, Euston and Paddington,
  920
  which all started with good shops. They no longer have them, because when people go to catch a train today they do not have time to do the shopping. Now the shopping parades are beginning to be redeveloped.
  The bus stations were built later, in about 1910, 50 or 60 years after the railway stations were built, so they are more often in the centre of towns. Unfortunately, the builders did not have regard for the passengers. They did not provide waiting rooms such as had been provided at railway stations but built what were really bus garages where people could simply get on and off the buses.
  There are some valuable sites that could be developed to give better facilities for the passengers, with flats, offices or shops over the bus stations, for the public's greater convenience. The buses should be stored outside the towns or in less prominent places than town centres, just as the railways stored railway carriages away from the main stations. Such development can be carried out only by experienced property developers. By providing the opportunity for that, the Bill will give revenue and profit to the buses. I do not think that "profit" is a dirty word, as some Labour Members seem to think it is.
  As for releasing the bus services themselves from nationalisation, a number of constituents who work on the buses asked me years ago, surprising as it may seem, why we did not denationalise those services. A number of people working on the cross-Channel ferries have asked why we do not denationalise British Rail ferries. There is a strike in progress at Newhaven, because British Rail cannot make the Newhaven-Dieppe service pay. The sailors ask "Should we not be taken over by private enterprise, because it would make the service pay?" We have had plenty of examples at Southampton, where British Rail ships came out and private firms went in and had great success.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) gave clear examples of similar successes when ordinary domestic services were taken over by private enterprise. I have talked to people who are very satisfied with the service that they are receiving.
  Labour Members who have dogmatic ideas about denationalisation should look at the sty in their own eye. There are very few examples of any nationalised industry or service being more successful than it was under private enterprise. Many people who work for a nationalised industry have the impression that it is a bottomless pit and that it will go on being fed with cash whatever happens. Those working in private enterprise know jolly well that unless their firm is successful and makes a profit the days of their jobs are numbered.
  I welcome the Bill. I wish it success and a speedy passage through Committee.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) is a kindly man, as we all know, but he has let the cat out of the bag. The Bill is in many ways about the point he has just raised—why the Government are trying to release precious centre city sites currently in the hands of the National Bus Company for development by their friends. It is easy to imagine the lobbying that has been going on over these last six months in the Department of Transport about the best way to ensure that these sites were released

  921
  prior to the next general election so as to enable a fair old round of property speculation to take place in the city centres.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) made an interesting intervention in the spirit of the debate—because much of this debate has been about privatisation of industry and trade—when he referred to the position of Laker and British Airways. When those hostesses were busy parading themselves down Whitehall yesterday and found that the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister would not let them into Downing Street, what they did not know and what every hon. Member of this House would know is that the reason why the Prime Minister was not going to intervene was quite simply that she knew that the privatisation policy of the Secretary of State for Transport as regards British Airways was at risk in the event of Laker's being saved.
  Laker was to pay the price of securing an early sell-off of British Airways assets by the Government, and I think that the country should know what happened. The reason Laker is sinking is that this Government want to protect their right to sell off British Airways as early as possible, and we all know that the greatest restraint upon that taking place is the fact that it is in a particularly difficult position in terms of profitability at the moment.
  I regard this Bill as a very shabby and evil one in many ways, especially the section that deals with the selling-off of testing stations for commercial vehicles. I believe that the Government have set up an opportunity for corruption on a major scale and that in years to come there will be questions raised from these Benches and perhaps even from the Conservative Benches. It may well be by me. I shall persist, as I always do. I remember two years ago when the Secretary of State blundered and introduced a clause in a Bill that had a direct effect on my constituency. On this occasion, I hope, it will not affect my constituency. But I am quite convinced that corruption will arise in the area of the testing of commercial vehicles as a result of the introduction of this Bill.
  I want to know from the Government what contingency arrangements there are within the Bill to ensure that there can be no link—direct, indirect or in any even remote way—between those people who submit their vehicles for a test in a privately owned testing station and the people who own that testing station. I can see within the Bill as I understand it no possible way of controlling any such relationship.
  I should also like to know why the Government do not accept that if a major haulier places all his business for the testing of his vehicles with an individual testing station that particular haulier will be able to exercise an undue influence on the enterprise carrying out the test. I believe that that haulier will be in an excellent position to exert pressure and to say to the tester, particularly if it happens to be a day on which he is short of tractor units and perhaps needs to send his vehicles to the other end of the country, because of the very high standing charges for maintaining those vehicles on the road,"I need that vehicle out tonight and whatever happens I am going to get it out. If I do not get it out, you will not get my business any more and I shall send it elsewhere."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman may not think that is the way they work, but I believe it is. I believe that in a year's time or two years' time we shall be saying to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this has happened and asking him to intervene to reverse the legislation that we
  922
  are carrying through tonight. We all know that within the haulage industry—I am not saying that it goes right across the board—there are people who do not play by the book. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall an intervention of mine two years ago, soon after I was elected to the House, on the use of permits internationally. Although did not pursue that point with him, for reasons of which he is well aware, he knows that corruption was involved. Now we have all the components in the Bill to secure corruption in the testing of transport.
  This is a two-nation Bill. Indeed, the social security Bills of the past few years, various clauses in the Finance Bills, and legislation relating to the National Health Service and a number of other subjects, including the infamous Transport Act 1980, were two-nation Bills. However, whereas those former Bills related to the privileged and the under-privileged in society generally this Bill adds to the problems that will arise in the differing rights of those who live in rural areas and those who live in cities to the transport that is provided for them. Because the Bill introduces private sector criteria into management. the companies will no longer be subject to the same commercial profit criteria under which they live today. The Government may not intend that, but the Secretary of State has said that it is within the terms of the Bill to sell off municipal undertakings, such as Cumberland Motor Services in my constituency. Such organisations will, no longer be required to use cross-subsidisation revenues in addition to revenue support to ensure the maintenance of rural services in such constituencies as mine. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, as he did on 20 March 1980 when he gave an undertaking that rural routes would not be lost in my constituency as a result of the Bill that he was then introducing. He knows that my constituency has lost six routes as a result of that Bill.
  Cross-subsidisation money will be lost under the Bill, which means that more rural routes will be lost. Companies such as Yeowarts in Whitehaven will set up in various parts of the country as cowboy operations. It operates with old buses of between 10 and 13 years of age and uses non-union labour. Such companies hire people for substantially lower amounts than the wages paid by public sector undertakings——
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has accused everybody of dishonest and scurrilous motives and corruption without any evidence to support that. Will he confirm that Yeowarts must operate its coaches under the same rigorous safety standards as every other operator? It is perfectly entitled to break into the CMS monopoly in Whitehaven provided it satisfies the Secretary of State that it is in the public interest to do so. The hon. Gentleman has revealed that his ulterior motive is to defend an over-powerful group of Transport and General Workers Union members in his constituency Labour Party—it is not a somewhat hypocritical concern for rural services.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not have one letter from any member of the TGWU in my constituency. The only people who have written to me are the rural dwellers and those who have lost their industrial services. They are incensed by the implementation of the 1980 Act, and recognise that the operation of Yeowarts in Whitehaven has been directly responsible for what has happened.
  I did not link in any way—if the hon. Gentleman wishes to read what I said in Hansard tomorrow—Yeowarts with

  923
  any suggestion of corruption. I am sure that it is a perfectly straightforward operation, although it does not play by the book as Cumberland Motor Services does. Any established company has to make adequate provision for its work force. The nationalised industries and publicly owned utilities maintain a high standard for their workers.
  Over the past few years one has seen examples of companies that have been privatised—the great warriors of privatisation in the economy. I remember them all well. Fire and Auto Marine went bankrupt. Brentford Nylons, Court Line, Laker, which is a classic example and to which I have already referred, the champion of them all, John Bloom, Rolls Razor in the sixties and Cyril Lord Carpets are all masterpieces of private enterprise. There are numerous examples of the so-called effective and successful private sector about which hon. Members on the Government Benches refuse to comment. They all had one thing in common. They tried to run their operations on the cheap in the same way as the little cowboy outfits that have been set up against public transport. The only people paying are our constituents.
  The Minister may shake his head. I have referred to my mailbag. He would be interesting if he referred to his. It should take on board the comments of the great Conservative-controlled counties which have made representations about the effect of the 1980 Act. Many of them rejected it and have refused to comply with it as it undermines services in the rural areas and may have upset Tory voters. The hon. and learned Gentleman's record on rival transport may well be excellent, but in the area of privatisation it has been quite dreadful inasmuch as the effect and motivation of the policy has been to undermine rural dwellers. This Bill only aggravates a condition which is the direct responsibility of this appalling Government.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) to the Opposition Front Bench. It is a joy for me to see his passage from chrysalid into beautiful butterfly. The same cannot be said for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I enjoyed his speech for its delivery but not its content. He does not see matters in black and white, but in black and blacker still. He is the greatest pessimist to whom I have the pleasure of listening in the Chamber.
  Reference was made to the Dartford tunnel. I must declare an interest, as I represent the people there. Everyone south of the river wants the temporary blockage of the Essex roadworks terminated as early as possible and traffic to start moving more quickly.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said that transport can help create wealth. But a lack of transport inhibits wealth creation.
  My constituents—those in business and those who commute—have access to the A20, A2 and M25. I accept that there may be significant differences between the transport infrastructures in the North and the South, but nothing had been done to aid the commuter or to ease the express transport of goods until the election of this Government.
  Legislation has been enacted in the lifetime of this Parliament which has been of tremendous benefit to my constituents and those of other North Kent Members. They
  924
  previously had no real alternative to trains, apart from private cars. Private bus companies were not permitted to seek licences from the road traffic commissioners to run a bus service to provide a different dimension—a real alternative to the nationalised industries and a cheaper service. Due to the Government's efforts, the position has changed radically. Private bus companies are running services at rush hour times from North Kent. Car sharing has also greatly augmented choice.
  I welcome the privatisation elements in the Bill. Privatisation is a means to economic recovery, to a better service and to better value for money. The Bill is a further step to liberalise the economic contributors.
  I turn to the proposals on vehicle testing. If any argument were necessary to convince me of the need for vehicle testing to be privatised it would be the reduction in the 900 civil servants involved in the testing, which could be done so much more cheaply and better privately.
  I make a plea to my hon. and learned Friend. When the testing stations are sold, consideration should be given to small and medium sized businesses, as well as parts of larger chains. If the Conservative Party stands for anything it is for the encouragement of smaller businesses. My hon. and learned Friend takes a positive view. I have been in correspondence with him over the past three years about the need to privatise in that way and to grant the opportunity to smaller businesses to buy testing stations.
  Finally, I turn to the fixed penalties in part III. For many years there has been great confusion between areas and between various magistrates courts about the level of fines. The blockages and the tremendous throughput of work in the magistrates courts will be much reduced by the measure.
  I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a black figure in the debate, perhaps I am a shining white example of great support for the Bill. The sooner that we move to privatisation in transport and elsewhere in local government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, the better for the British people.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I had not intended to participate in the debate until I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain). The hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber for good reasons and has asked me to pass on his apologies. I promised not to say anything nasty about him in his absence.
  The hon. Gentleman believed that I was laughing because I was against the enforcement of road fund licences. Twenty-five years ago I pointed out the dangers of the evasion of road fund licences. I was told that, as there were only a few cases, it was not worth taking action. But, like Topsy, the problem grew and grew. It became so great that its size was then used as the argument for not doing anything. The police force is now underpaid and overworked and cannot cope.
  I laughed because the same civil servants and the same kind of Ministers are again creating well-paid jobs by introducing a conglomerate of stupid measures in a three-way Bill. They know full well that every time they make these innovations they fall down.
  The last big occasion was the Swansea computer, set up to do the road fund licensing and the registration of documents and offences. It was going to work perfectly.

  925
  The civil servants started off by saying that it would cost only £1 million, or £2 million, or £3 million, or £4 million, and that it would be done in a month or two, or a year or two or three. I do not know how long it took them before it became £20 million or £30 million and then they discovered that it was no good and it all fell through. We are now back to the old days. We have hit the nail on the head by advertising in the press that licences can now be obtained from post offices. Twenty-five years ago that is what we always did. All those civil servants who had good jobs and went up to Swansea will be coming back.
  Now we are talking about enforcing penalties. What a joke. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that we could go down to Folkestone and fine the drivers of lorries which are illegally parked but one has only to walk to Soho or to Oxford Street to do that. If one walks past the Department's office, one finds large numbers of cars parked illegally, and on parking meters with no payments for hours on end. Yet there is no action.
  The police are supposed to be over-stretched. We have the biggest police force we have ever had. The police force has things that it never had before—panda cars, Rover cars, black Marias, two-way radios, electronic aids and God knows what else. Yet we have more crime now than we have ever had in our history. One used to be able to walk in any street in London. Today, one cannot walk in daylight in certain streets.
  If we introduce legislation which we know cannot be enforced, it will not be enforced. I can take any hon. Member on any work day to Leather Lane, where there is a street market. The street marketeer vans have been there literally for years but have never been taxed or road tested. They have been reported to the police for 20 or 25 years but they are still there.
  I can also show cars and other vehicles with huge piles of parking tickets. One chap boasted that he had 54 parking fines. What difference will the Bill make? The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe was wrong when he said that when offenders receive fines they are enforced on the spot, that the offenders have to pay. They do not. They can still object and go to court. When they do not trouble to turn up at the court, they get a fine which they do not pay but which goes on the list.
  The Home Secretary who is a member of the Government, I believe, introduced the Criminal Justice Bill. He said that we had to cut down on prison sentences and on the prisons and that we must not send people to prison for anything that is not really bad. As for those who do not pay their fines, the Home Secretary would not dream of sending them to prison. The police now know that if somebody says that he will not pay the fine, that is it. The Bill will not make any difference. What will happen was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman), who was right to say that there would be dangers.
  I wish that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) were here. If he were, he would be able to confirm, or I hope deny, that the police have a black list. They have a black list of politicians and prominent people. If those people cross the police when in trouble, the police will throw the book at them. What will happen when a politician who may have upset the police is pulled up? Now the police do not know who he is and will say that he can move on, but when the Bill is passed the police will say that driver must give up his licence. When he does so, they will say, "Ah, you are Mr. X the MP, are you? You
  926
  are on our black list, so you are in trouble." However, if it is Mr. Y or even Mrs. T the police will say that he or she is all right because he or she is not on the black list. That will happen. I do not see why that should happen. I do not see why the police should be the arbiters.
  At the moment the police can still decide whether to proceed. However, there is a difference between their actions now on a voluntary basis and having compulsory legislative opportunities to take action. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe is right to say that the good law-abiding citizen will pay up. He will follow the law. However, the man who deliberately and incessantly breaks the law will get away with it.
  Often both Conservative and Labour Governments bring in legislation to penalise and punish the good law-abiding citizen. I take as an example dog licences. The Government said that the dog licence fee would be increased because many people were not paying it. Therefore, the good old-age pensioner who pays already pays more. What a stupid system. The wearing of seat belts is being compulsorily enforced. Will they be compulsory? No, of course not. Those who want to wear seat belts will do so.
  Therefore, I cannot for the life of me see why we should keep on introducing regressive legislation against decent and honest people when we know that that legislation cannot be enforced against those whom we want to affect and that it will be enforced against those who are not the main culprits.
  The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe referred to his constituency. I agree with what he said about: lorries there. However, one does riot have to go all the way to Folkestone to see that. I could take him for a ten-minute trip round London, where the ambulances, fire engines and public service vehicles cannot get down the streets because of illegal parking. Sometimes the vehicles are two or three abreast, sometimes they are on the road or on the pavements; often they are broken down.
  If one contacts the police force, which is the largest in our history, it takes a fortnight to receive an acknowledgement of the telephone call. It takes three weeks to receive a card to say that the police are giving the matter their attention. After two months they say that nothing can be done. One still sees the same vehicles on the streets. I cannot and will not support a system that means attacks upon the good law-abiding citizen, while the culprit gets away with it.
  Illegal parking can easily be overcome. Why not use the crocodile clamp, which is a big clamp screwed or locked on to the wheel? The driver cannot shift the car. He has to go to the police pound, and he has to take a taxi to gel there. He has to pay a fine. If he has not paid his road fund licence, he has to pay that, too. Then the policeman has to come back to unlock the clamp. The car cannot be moved because the crocodile clamp would cut the car tyre to pieces. If there were a few hundred or thousand such clamps in London, people would soon say "We are not going to get caught like that." That is a cheaper and easier way. However, it will not give 101,000 jobs to the top-paid civil servants in the Ministry of Transport for doing nothing, so I suppose that that is one reason why the clamps will not be introduced
  I shall finish now, because I told my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that I would sit down by 9 o'clock. That I now do.
  9 pm
  Mr. John G. Blackburn: This moment takes me back 12 months when I had the privilege to introduce the Zoo Licensing (No. 2) Bill, because we have had a wonderful journey with crocodiles, parrots from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), pandas, and other animals. Now, in the few minutes that I have, I hope to break all records.
  In my judgment, the House of Commons is always at its best when it talks about people—not policies or principles, but people. The 1980 Act has had a tremendous effect on the people in my constituency because it has removed licensing regulations from scheduled express services, excursions, day tours, coach holidays, and so on. It has made a remarkable difference to my constituents who can now come to London for £6. When local authority representatives come to discuss matters of state here, they travel by bus. It is a good Act and it has made a tremendous difference, particularly to people on fixed incomes and pensioners, who can now get to the seaside for their holidays and take excursions—all as a result of the benefits brought to them by the 1980 Act.
  If testimony is required, it is interesting that in the last three months of 1980, when the Act was operative, passenger traffic increased by 16.6 per cent. It would be foolish to judge a policy on three months' figures, but I hope that the Minister will tell us the figures for at least the first half of 1981 to confirm the figure that I have given.
  I hope that the Minister will give us a commitment tonight that the express services will continue. I do not accept that the word "profit" is obscene. I sincerely believe that we should have profitability, and it will come from an increase in the volume of passenger traffic.
  I am particularly concerned that certain aspects of the Bill will be implemented quickly, because it is remarkable how anyone in the West Midlands conurbation is ever convicted of speeding. The latest figures show that traffic in the West Midlands moves at 10.8 miles an hour, and sometimes I feel that that is an exaggeration.
  I am also concerned about clause 31. If a police officer, in carrying out his duties, inspects a licence that has endorsements and gives a further endorsement, it can affect a man's livelihood and career. It is wrong that that should be left in the hands of an individual police officer. In my view, the matter should be decided in the courts.
  I conclude by expressing my deep concern at what was said by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about allegations of corruption. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of that, it is his moral duty to the House and his electorate to place that evidence in the hands of the Home Secretary. It is time that some hon. Member gave a vote of confidence to the men and women in our police service. I am tired of hearing attack upon attack on the men and women who give such a wonderful service. I will certainly give a vote of confidence to the police service.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: We have had an interesting debate. The first thing to be realised about the Bill is that it is not a Transport Bill at all. It has the most tenuous connections with transport. Given what we have heard today, the Bill's only connection with transport is that it emanates from the Department of Tranport. I
  928
  regret to say that the Secretary of State was his usual insipid, unconvincing self. He showed no enthusiasm whatever for the Bill. He did not advance any valid reasons for the main changes that he has introduced. Perhaps his arguments in favour of the Bill and his discussion of transport policy were so thin because he was conscious of not wishing to give hostages to fortune. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler)—now Secretary of State for Social Services—was not quite so careful. He certainly gave a hostage to fortune on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill on 27 November 1979, when with great gusto, he solemnly told us—at column 1123—that if he could attract the Freddie Lakers of the world into the bus services, he would regard the Bill as an outstanding success. The collapse of Laker Airways only a couple of days ago must be very embarrassing to the former Secretary of State.
  The Government must be seriously embarrassed about the collapse of Laker Airways with an estimated debt of £270 million. I regret as much as anyone the loss of jobs in Laker Airways. With 3 million unemployed, no one can be at all sanguine about the chances of those out of work finding a job. However, some of the press have been hysterical in the lauding of Laker. Many people who bought tickets—not those with package tours—are unsecured creditors. The chances of their getting their money back will not make them very partial to Laker Airways.
  Similarly, many people who supplied Laker Airways are also in the position of unsecured creditors. Many of them are the small business men who are so much in the minds of Conservative Members. They will be very seriously concerned about their position.
  There is an old saying of my late grandmother which covers the position of people associated with Laker Airways and the whole aspect of transport. She used to say "If you buy cheap you buy dear in the long run". If the attitude towards transport—whether it be buses, trains, or the airways—is to sell the product at the cheapest possible price, we are in for great trouble.
  Before I come to the contents of the Bill, I want to raise an issue that is not in the Bill, but which the Under-Secretary of State might be able to answer when he winds up. It is not long since the Secretary of State told the House that, despite all his earlier assurances, the GLC could no longer found concessionary fares on existing legislation. He promised to take powers to allow the GLC to borrow in order to spread the deficit—possibly over three years. What has happened to that promise? This is a Transport Bill. Why is that provision not included? We have everything else under the sun in the Bill. Why have we not got the provision for the GLC on these two limited factors? We need an answer to that. When will we have the legislation promised to deal with these two aspects of the GLC? However, that would not satisfy me, or the Opposition.
  The wider aspect of public transport in relation to local authority services also needs to be examined. Despite what has been said, the law is in confusion in England and Wales, as a result of the decision on the GLC in the other place. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind that by 205 votes to 177 the House today expressed its will that the law in relation to the GLC should be restored to the position that everyone thought existed.
  Clause 48 is an extraordinary provision for a Transport Bill. The Secretary of State was asked the type of

  929
  circumstances in which it might apply, but he let such questions pass in a cavalier fashion. To take such wide powers without justification, elaboration of how he intends to apply them, or discussion of the circumstances in which he might be involved is not good enough. Clause 48 makes it clear that he will have the power to order and direct harbour authorities to do anything that he considers necessary
  "in the interests of national defence".
  When do the interests of national defence arise? Would national defence be called into play as a result of some civil disorder? Would such powers be taken in a run-up to a crisis, when a war is anticipated within a couple of days? What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean by
  "in the interests of national defence"?
  It has been suggested that if a nuclear-powered submarine was in difficulty, a harbour authority might give good environmental reasons, or reasons concerning the safety of citizens, for not allowing the submarine into the port. Would that situation be covered? If a cargo of chemical warfare weapons from the United States of America tried to enter a port, but the harbour authority said that it did not want it, would the Secretary of State use the powers under clause 48 to order the port to accept the vessel? I have mentioned only two possibilities. In a sense, they are not fanciful, but we can only speculate because the Secretary of State has told us nothing. Therefore, I hope that he will give an explanation.
  Part III concerns fixed penalties. Hon. Members have rightly shown great concern about preserving the balance between administrative convenience and the legal rights of individuals. The Government think that they have got the balance right, although there is serious doubt about that. In Committee, we shall have to probe deeply and I hope that the Government will not consider their proposals infallible, but will consider amendments on their merits and be prepared to make changes. Representations have been made from various quarters about the provision to produce a driving licence. The Secretary of State appeared to say that the licence would have to be produced, but that was all. However, that is not what the Bill states. Part III states that a driver must produce his licence for inspection by the constable.
  How far does inspection go? If only the front part of the licence is shown, in its folder, the constable will see only the name and address and will not see anything about endorsements. Surely inspection means that the constable is entitled to take out the licence and examine it carefully. People are concerned about that. There is a feeling that if the constable sees that someone has a conviction for speeding or careless driving—despite the fact that the convictions might be technically expunged from the record—he may be influenced in his judgment whether to impose a fixed penalty or to give him a warning.
  The matter could be argued both ways. Some might argue that it is reasonable to take into account someone's record if he is to be prosecuted.- The hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that the current position is that before a prosecution is made the record is seen. That is true, but it is a different matter to decide whether to go for a prosecution or to prosecute and find guilty at the same time. I know that the motorist who is stopped has the right not to accept the fixed penalty charge. He can opt to go to court and defend it. We have
  930
  been told much about the pressure on business men. That might lead them to accept the charge rather than become involved in a hassle with the courts.
  Some concern has been expressed about how the courts deal with matters that come before them now. There is a feeling—I do not know how justified it is—that those who defend actions in court are dealt with more severely than if they simply send a letter pleading guilty or turn up to plead guilty. It is believed in some quarters that the magistrates, by consultation, have come to the conclusion that if they feel that court time has been wasted by a frivolous defence they will impose a higher penalty. I hope that that is not so. I hope that if a motorist exercises his option, which he will legally be entitled to do if the Bill becomes law, there will be no suggestion that the courts will summarily decide that he should be dealt with more harshly. That would not be justice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) raised the issue of corroboration in Scotland. Nothing in the Bill takes away more than was taken away from traffic wardens. There is no question of a lower standard of proof being required than is now the case in Scottish courts. I hope that we can be reassured about that.
  There is much in part III about fixed penalties that must be probed deeply. I am sure that we shall have a long and proper discussion of that section. However, it would have been better, as many hon. Members have said, if it had been a separate Bill. It would have avoided the difficulty in which some Conservative Members are placed. They have been unhappy about part II of the Bill and some of them will not support the Government in the Lobby tonight. They may have reservations about part III but they will be compelled to vote for it because the whole Bill carries the issue of the Conservative Party's dogma.
  Part II of the Bill is very important. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and the distinguished Chairrnrin of the Select Committee on Transport, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley), have said that they believe strongly in the recommendations of the Select Committee, which considered carefully the privatisation of the heavy goods vehicle testing stations. They are quite adamant that, having considered all the evidence and having taken evidence from all sorts of bodies, no one is in favour of the measure.
  The Freight Transport Association document has been quoted many times by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who is not in the Chamber now. The document says quite clearly that the industry is unhappy about the proposed changes. It says:
  "Nevertheless Government was clearly determined to press ahead and over the intervening two years the Department of Transport has conducted frequent discussions with the FI'A and the RHA with a view to designing a scheme which would be acceptable to commercial vehicle operators and allay industry's fears.
  The Transport Bill reflects those discussions and the consultation machinery embodied in clause 14 is in line with the arrangements discussed and agreed between the Department of Transport and industry and goes a long way"——
  not the whole way——
  "towards meeting industry's constant plea that private testing should not …",
  and so on. It makes it clear that the FTA is not happy even with the safeguards now evolved and that it will require the Committee to probe deeply into this matter. The FTA still does not believe that the Government will be able to

  931
  find an acceptable organisation to take over the whole testing function, although it accepts that clauses 8 to 23 are broadly satisfactory to them.
  We must ask ourselves why there is a need for vehicle testing stations at all. That is a relevant point which has not so far been touched upon. Vehicle testing stations are required. Indeed, they are vital, as it is obvious that the industry cannot police itself or maintain standards. If there was an absolute guarantee that standards could be maintained within the road haulage industry and the bus industry, there would be no need for vehicle testing stations. It is precisely because of the policing mechanism that testing stations are needed.
  The truth is that the privatisation of heavy goods vehicle testing stations has nothing to do with private industry being able to do the job better than or as well as the existing system. It is simply that the Department has been told that it must shed 900 civil servants. The Minister knows that if he does not deliver the goods and somehow get rid of 900 of his staff, not only will he have to find 900 people from elsewhere in the Department, but the blessed Margaret—or the blasted Margaret, one is never quite sure these days—will smack him on the wrist and tell him that he is a bad boy and must do as he is told. That is what it is all about. All the business about private investment and the ability of private enterprise to do the job just as well is a pure smokescreen.
  Not only in this clause but throughout this part of the Bill the Minister has shown no concern whatever for the remote areas. He was quite unable to tell us how the remote area stations which operate for only three or four days a week could be retained. He did not tell us how costs could be kept down. He said nothing about the link between testing and repair stations and the problems and dangers of malpractice.
  The very suggestion that there might be malpractice in vehicle testing is greeted with horror by Conservative Members. The idea that pressure might be brought to bear on testers to allow vehicles to pass the test is regarded as anathema to the industry. But even now pressures may be brought to bear on testers. An article in the New Statesman a few weeks ago under the headline
  "Minister seeks to remove official who tried to enforce the law"
  stated:
  "The efforts of a minor official in Cornwall to enforce the laws on lorry safety so upset Cabinet Minister John Nott that he wrote a confidential letter to the Transport Secretary, Norman Fowler, demanding the removal of the official. The law enforcer is David Broom, a Department of Transport traffic examiner who was based at Redruth, covering Mr. Non's constituency of St. Ives. Last February Mr. Nott, at that time Secretary of State for Trade, wrote a personal and confidential letter to Mr. Fowler complaining that Mr. Broom was doing his job with too much zeal. Mr. Broom has since been reprimanded and transferred. The nearest check on whether local haulage firms are breaking the safety laws in now 60 miles away."
  If I had time, I could go into all the details of that case and show how in my view quite improper pressure was used to remove a man who was doing his job. If that shocking fact can happen now, we all know what can happen once the private operators begin to gang together and try to rush these things through.
  Indeed, the Government are so keen on privatisation of the heavy goods vehicle testing stations, and so anxious to get rid of the 900 civil servants, that they have taken
  932
  not just the power to establish a company or to encourage companies to take over the whole or bits of an organisation, but the power to give them loans allowing them to set up.
  It goes further than that. Clause 12(4) states:
  "The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury remit in whole or in part the liability of any company in respect of loans made to the company by virtue of this section."
  Everyone must accept that the Government are using sheer bribery to get the matter off their hands. The Government ought to know better and be ashamed of themselves.
  Clause 1 concerns privatisation of the National Bus Company. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State has shown no concern for what might happen to the rural areas if large sections of the company were sold off. Indeed, he showed his total lack of concern for rural areas as the Secretary of State for Energy when there was a petrol crisis and prices were being "bunged-up". His hon. Friends on the Back Benches kicked hell out of him for not taking action. That policy has continued throughout his career.
  The Secretary of State introduced the Bill as a mild measure to allow the introduction of private capital. It was said that the poor National Bus Company had difficulty with its capital requirements and that it would be nice for it to get private capital. The Bill does not say that. It deals not with the access of private capital, but with selling off subsidiaries. It is clear in parts I and II that the purpose is to sell them off.
  Indeed, not only are the Government to sell off existing subsidiaries, but the power is given for the Secretary of State to direct the National Bus Company to set up subsidiaries and transfer assets for the sole purpose of selling them off. That has nothing to do with the good and integrated operations of the company, but simply with ensuring that private enterprise gets some access to sites which it does not now have. It is all about the private developers, interested in speculative gain, being allowed access to prime sites in city centres for development. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) let that cat out of the bag.
  I only wish that the Government would not come to the House pretending that they were doing one thing when, in reality, the whole tenor of the clauses shows that they are intent on doing the opposite. It is becoming ludicrous.
  The Opposition clearly say that when we return to Government we will restore to public ownership the assets disposed of. We make that clear pledge.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did my hon. Friend notice the strange inconsistency which developed in the debate when the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley), when commenting for the Social Democratic Party on carriage service arrangements, made totally contrary statements to those expressed by members of the Liberal Party during the passage of new clause 6 in the Transport Act 1980? Would he care to comment on the gross inconsistency that obviously exists within the alliance which is trying to maintain credibility?
  Mr. Hughes: The longer the alliance exists, the clearer it becomes that it is fictional, especially since the Liberal Party did not even bother to attend the debate.
  The Bill, along with all other Transport Bills which the Government have enacted, exposes their attitude to public transport. There is no understanding of the issues or

  933
  strategy for the growth of public transport. When introducing the Bill tonight, the Secretary of State had no more vigour than a broken reed.
  No one can have any confidence in the future—not the travelling public, and not those who work in the industry. The Government are concerned only with the short-term public relations image, with showing that they have made some attempt, however bogus, to cut the number of civil servants and, however the books are manipulated, that they have made an attempt to cut the public sector borrowing requirement. The Government have totally ignored the long-term damage to public transport and the travelling public. For those and other reasons we shall vote against the Bill.
  9.30 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): It is inevitable that a large number of hon. Members who have taken part in the debate should refer to the fact that we have had a number of large Transport Bills in this Parliament and that this is the third omnibus Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said, each one is better than the last. Each Bill received the same reaction from the Opposition of dogged resistance to change and dogged defence of outmoded restrictions that have affected many of the transport industries for too long.
  One of the variations on the theme of how many Transport Bills the Government have brought forward was the suggestion that we should divide the Bill into two or three separate Bills for separate discussion. However, this is only one of the pieces of transport legislation before this Parliament. There are three Bills altogether, and to divide the Bill would make at least four transport Bills. There is a limit to the desire even of this House to debate transport matters on each and every occasion that parliamentary time affords.
  The hon.Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) suggested a new variation. He wanted to include legislation on the Greater London Council in the Bill. However, as he knows, the Government have made it clear that we intend to clarify for the GLC such small points of the law that we accept need clarification. The Bill would be delayed if we included legislation on the GLC, given the length of discussion we are promised in Committee. The necessary legislation will be presented soon.
  The Bill will take some time to go through the House. I can see that it will begin with constant references to the Transport Act 1980. That Act has made great changes to the inter-city coach services, on which we now propose to build with the provisions in part I.
  There is a consistent theme dividing the House. The Government believe that this area of transport, in common with several others, benefits from liberalisation and the removal of outmoded restrictions and can give a better service to the public if freed from them. The Opposition have always been pessimistic about the coach and bus market. They fear change. They prefer the services to be regulated and totally State owned. They accepted that under the old system the bus industry was in decline, but as it was a decline with which they were familiar they hoped that it would continue. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) dramatically underlined, since the Transport Act 1980, which the Opposition fought tooth and nail, there has been an
  934
  enormous expansion in inter-city coach services, providing cheaper, reliable travel for many people. We believe we can continue that policy.
  Mr.Booth rose——
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) attacked our proposal to introduce private capital into National Express—the most successful of the inter-city coach operations—on the basis that we were disappointed that the nationalised industry had been one of the principal beneficiaries from our legislation. He was unable to cite anything to justify that allegation. Indeed, in the legislation, passed about two years ago, we made it clear that we were impartial on the public and the private sectors. We believe that competition will enable them to take advantage of the opportunities given to them, and to serve the public. I refer the House to the Official Report of the Committee proceedings of the 1980 Act, on 24 January 1980, columns 488–491. I was attempting to explain to Opposition Members the potential of the Bill for the National Bus Company and the National Express network. It was the Opposition who resisted, claiming that they were defending the National Bus Company against competition, and denying the prospects held out the Government that National Bus could benefit from the change. I stated on that occasion:
  "The fact that we shall be giving the National Bus Company the opportunity to win the extra revenue that it is claiming by freeing the express business should not have any damaging effect on its ability to fulfil its statutory role and maintain the rest of its services."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 24 January 1980; c. 490.]
  The Opposition argued that de-licensing would damage rural services. What has happened is that it has been a great success in generating funds for the National Bus Company. Now the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness argues that if it is taken away it will damage the rural services because it needs the income that the new legislation has enabled it to earn to cross-subsidise the rural services. This shows that the right hon. Gentleman's approach is one of pessimism. He does not believe that the NBC can thrive given the opportuniies that this Bill will add to the opportunities already available.
  Mr. Booth: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that his reference to the expansion of the NBC relates only to its express services, representing 7 per cent of its total area of operations? Will he give some indication of how massive has been the decline in the whole of the rest of the operation? From how many millions of miles is it forecast that the NBC will have to withdraw services? How many fewer staff are employed by the NBC and how many fewer buses is it now operating since the passing of the 1980 Act?
  Mr. Clarke: National Bus has been reorganising its rural and other bus services following market analysis for many years. The steady reduction of route mileage has been a response to demand by the NBC for several years. This has nothing to do with the Transport Act 1980 which. so far as it relates to inter-city services, now under discussion, has generated additional income for National Bus. It has been a growth sector in its activities.
  There has been reference to the fact that the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley). who intervened on behalf of the Social Democrats, were far

  935
  removed from those of the Liberal Party although the Liberals have not expressed a view during this debate. The hon. Member for Leicester, East must have been exceedingly worried to find himself voting against the Labour Party yesterday. The hon. Gentleman made a speech based on such shell-backed Socialism that it was impossible to distinguish between his views and those of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness. The hon. Gentleman expressed the same fears on de-licensing and de-regulation during discussion of the Transport Bill in 1979. That has driven him to his present pessimism. I should like to refer to the stirring words of the hon. Member for Leicester, East when he faced the prospect of liberalising the transport market. He said:
  "I still do not believe that this is the moment to scorn the regulations introduced in 1930 to avoid the kind of intense competition that would end cross-subsidisation and let loose a price war leading to a decline in certain essential services."— [Official Report, 27 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 1222–3.]
  Those stirring words of the new party take us back to the spirit of Ramsay MacDonald and the first Labour Government, who introduced the regulations that the hon. Gentleman was defending. If we continue to listen to the entreaties of the Labour Party or the Social Democrats on new, expanding areas like inter-city long-distance coaches, there will be no change and no expansion. The public will be deprived of a valuable service. Given the fact that we have been extremely successful in developing inter-city coach services, the time has come to enable the National Express services to be further developed.
  In the first two years, there has been an unusual development. Traffic has increased rapidly and business has expanded beyond the expectations of National Bus as well as the Opposition. It is, however, inhibited in its access to further investment and capital by the constraints of the public sector. It operates in and out of coach terminals so admirably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that no longer match the expectations of customers attracted to the highly successful coach businesses.
  It is the Government's opinion that the best way to provide access to capital and to allow business to develop—this is what interests us—for the benefit of the travelling public is to allow access to private capital through the means set out in part I of the Bill. National Bus will first be able to set up a distinct company comprising National Express and National Holiday either together or apart that will acquire a track record and be able to show Companies Act accounts, enabling it to float the company and turn it into a private sector company with access to capital. The National Bus Company will retain a substantial stake in any companies it floats.
  The Bill makes express provision for employees' shareholding, a feature upon which the Government are keen. The Bill also makes provision for the same arrangements to be made, either together or apart from other businesses, for developing the properties. The old bus stations, free from the inhibitions that the public sector has to lay upon them to restrain their use of public moneys, could be developed with attractive development alongside the improvement of the bus stations themselves, which is very much required.
  Mr. Roger Stott: I do not want to develop Committee points on the Floor of the House, but the Minister will recall that he and I had a long argument on the last Transport Act about the position of subsidiary companies. I put it to him that he should tell the House what the position is. If the National Bus Company is forced to sell off its express routes it will have to sell more than 50 per cent. of its shareholding because, if it does not, it will still be confined by the external financing limit. When I was arguing about British Rail, the Minister said that the only way those subsidiaries would be deemed to have been sold was when British Rail lost control of them. Is the Minister telling the House that the National Bus Company will have to lose control of its express services for it to be considered as being outside its external finance limits?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right. He and I always have long arguments about this and the answer is always the same. To be regarded as a private sector company and, therefore, free from the constraints which the Treasury, this Government and every previous Government have had to impose on public sector companies, control must pass to private sector investors. Nevertheless, that does not inhibit them from retaining a substantial interest from which they can derive benefits. The people who work in the express business will benefit from the development of the business that follows once they have access to additional capital.
  I have not time to go into the arguments about rural services. I will say only that the Bill is not immediately concerned with that problem, but, of course, it is a problem to which the Government are addressing themselves. There have been years and years of decline in rural bus services. The time has come for new thinking in this area, just as much as in inter-city transport. It will not do for the Opposition to invoke against each and every proposal put forward by the Government the argument that to de-license will threaten rural services, that to denationalise National Express will threaten rural services, that to grant a licence that breaks the CMS monopoly in Whitehaven will threaten rural services.
  What is threatening rural services is a lack of demand and inflexibility in response to changing markets. At this stage I shall not detail what has happened following the previous Act by taking the favourable examples of Hereford and Worcester, where, within a trial area, cheaper and better services are operating. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that the Government are just as active in the rural transport area, and intend to be so, as in any other.
  Part II of the Bill is concerned with our proposals for heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle testing. Again, our proposals are certainly novel. They have aroused a wide range of doubt and concern, most of it based on an intrinsic resistance to change. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) was able to invoke in his aid a worthy Tory resistance to change for its own sake. His motives were more understandable and acceptable to my right hon. Friend and myself than what appears to be the dogged resistance to change of any kind in transport that comes on all subjects from the Opposition.
  In relation to the changes that we are proposing in the heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle testing area, we see no reason why jobs should continue to be done by the Government when this is happening only because of historical accident and when there are

  937
  limitations in the way in which the job is done. All the employees are civil servants, even the garage mechanics. They are all employed on Civil Service terms and conditions. There is an inevitable inflexibility in management and response to customer demand that does not operate elsewhere. We believe that the changes we are proposing will provide a better service to the road haulage operators, and will help to reduce their costs. In turn, this will be of benefit to their customers whose goods will have their transport costs reduced.
  The main benefit that should flow from having the stations transferred to the private sector and operated by private sector management is that it can offer a more flexible service than it is possible to arrange within the inhibitions of Civil Service arrangments. The great problem for road hauliers in taking their vehicles to heavy goods vehicle testing stations is the down time—the amount of time required for a vehicle to be off the road for preparation for the test, the test itself and any adjustments.
  A wide range of respectable bodies is interested in the test stations. One of the things that they would all find easy to provide, which the Government do not, is the possibility of evening and weekend testing, the provision of a pit for operators' fitters to work in to carry out repairs at the time of testing, other amenities for the drivers and the sale of spares alongside testing facilities. All those improved services could be offered by the private sector operators.
  The fears expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh and for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and by others are understandable. They were initially voiced strongly by reputable bodies such as the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association and by many members of the public, whose principal interest is that this should remain a respected and fully effective organisation.
  The Government's prime purpose in anything that we do vis-a-vis heavy goods vehicle testing and public service vehicle testing is to retain the present high standards of testing and its assurance of public safety. One of the first fears expressed about that concerns the kind of people to whom the organisation might be transferred. I shall not go into the wilder and more malign allegations of such people as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), but fears have been expressed that the testing might be taken over by people who would compromise because they had a conflict of interest in their other arrangements with the road haulage industry.
  We are in no way committed to particular bodies, though we are examining the possibility of Lloyd's Register of Shipping being interested in the task. We have agreed with the industry that, in close statutory consultation with it, we shall make a very careful choice of the operators to whom the stations are transferred. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will choose the operators and will impose conditions upon them in consultation, following the provisions of clause 14, with an advisory panel drawn from the very bodies that originally expressed the kind of fears that have been rehearsed again in this debate.
  We shall make sure that the people to whom we transfer the stations are of the highest integrity and that they are in no way put in a position involving a conflict of interests. In transferring sites we shall also make sure that the use cannot be changed without the Secretary of State's approval, and that a network of testing stations is
  938
  maintained, so that any private sector operator will have to take on some less attractive and unprofitable stations together with the profitable ones.
  It has been alleged that our proposals give rise to the risk of fraud and malpractice. At present the standards are of the highest and the integrity of the system is relied upon on all sides, but, as one hon. Member said, there is nothing to stop a bribe being offered to a civil servant at present. One must have the protection of supervision and the criminal law.
  Mr. Jay rose——
  Mr. Clarke: I am running out of time, and the right hon. Gentleman has only just arrived.
  I must refute the suggestion that any connection with the private sector automatically involves fraud, malpractice and the possible issue of "bent" test certificates, an allegation frequently made from the Opposition Benches. I have already mentioned that one of the bodies with which we are already in negotiation, with no commitment on either side, is Lloyd's Register of Shipping, which for years has carried out statutory inspection of ships for safety purposes. If any hon. Member had suggested that Lloyd's Register of Shipping was likely to turn to fraud and malpractice in this area, the allegation would have bee n regarded as ridiculous.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) talked about similar arrangements in the cement industry which have operated with the highest integrity and nobody has ever challenged them as far as I am aware or he is aware.
  Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) pointed out that because of the discussions we have had since the report of the Select Committee, over whose inquiry my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh presided, and because of all the reassurances we have been able to give to them people have adjusted their position and modified their concern. It is not only the statutory consultation. We reassured them by pointing out the kind of controls that the Secretary of State and the Government will retain to ensure public safety and to ensure the continued integrity of the system.
  We are talking only about the standard mechanical checks to be carried out annually on the lorries and the buses. That is only one part of a whole system of safety checks, including the operator licensing and the like. But, even when we transfer the 91 testing stations and their expert staff, we shall still retain complete control, not only over authorisation of the operators but of individual authorisation of the technical staff carrying out the tests. We shall set the content of the tests, the standards for the staff training and the standards for the premises, equipment, and so on. Our offical civil servants will still be able to visit at any time the premises on which the tests are being carried out and to carry out surprise tests. We shall of course vet all the results of the tests and rapidly detect any variations in performance or pass rates coming out of the individual places. And we shall still retain the system of spot checks by the roadside, which will of course very rapidly begin to throw up cases of unsafe vehicles on the road that have acquired test certificates. We shall retain the present sanctions against those testing, including the ability to withdraw the authorisation from an individual tester or from an operator if any serious doubt arises about the operation of the system.

  939
  So we can retain the integrity of the system, we can maintain public safety, we can at the same time improve the service to the industry and reduce its cost, and we can get the Government out of a job running garages of a highly specialised kind which the Government and the taxpayer have no business being in. Although we shall retain our staff to do the essential supervising work, there will be 900 fewer civil servants as a result of this policy—900 people who should never have been in the Civil Service in the first place.
  I shall touch very briefly on the provisions in clause 45, also on heavy goods vehicles and also part of our policy regardng heavy lorries and adopting what were originally the Foster committee recommendations on operator licensing, so that the licensing authority in future will be able to have regard to the suitability of the premises as an operating centre as well as all the other relevant matters.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the clearing up of an anomaly by this Bill will be received with great relief in urban constituencies? Can he tell me whether individual neighbours will be able to make individual representations to the licensing authority on these matters?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Watford has underlined the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, that a lot of people are very concerned about the small operators, in particular operating in residential streets and so on. The position is that, first, the licensing authority will be able to have regard to them. Obviously the licensing authority will listen to representations from local authorities, the police and all the people who have access to the system at the moment. But we also intend to make regulations to enable, for instance, owners and occupiers of property in the vicinity to make representations to the licensing authority. Thus, when an operating licence is being given or renewed it will be open to the licensing authority to have regard to the suitability of the area, the impact upon neighbours, and whether it is a desirable place for a heavy goods vehicle business to be run.
  I hope that with amplification in Committee all hon. Members will be able to accept that this is a very desirable step towards reducing the impact that the heavy lorry has on the environment, both in suburban London and in rural villages.
  Turning to the fixed penalty part of the Bill, this was described by most people as welcome and then gave rise to a very large number of individual points, which are bound, I am sure, to be examined at great length in the Standing Committee. Perhaps I should deal first with the Scottish points upon which I needed the assistance of my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  The point that was raised most consistently was the question of any possible change in or breach of the Scottish law of corroboration. I am told that there is in this Bill no change whatever to the Scottish rules of evidence, apart from two very minor changes in clause 40, to which attention will be drawn in the Standing Committee.
  As far as England and Wales are concerned, the extension of the so-called fixed penalty system to a much wider range of offences will be of benefit to a wide cross-section of the community. I do not know whether the general public know quite what fixed penalties are; they
  940
  are more familiar with the parking ticket. What they will now have is the speeding ticket, the construction and use ticket and traffic tickets, which will be given for some of the minor moving traffic offences. That will be of considerable advantage to the courts and police. The principal object of the courts and police is to enforce the criminal law and protect us against crime. It is an important part of their duties, but a burden to them, that so many traffic offences go through the magistrates court system.
  The changes that we propose are expected to take about 600,000 minor traffic offences out of the court process. Many of those at the moment, as the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) said, give rise to a written plea of guilty, but, nevertheless, they are a considerable administrative burden. The whole paraphernalia has to be followed on paper, even if the hearing takes place in the absence of the motorist.
  The advantage to the motorist will be the same. The process will be much more straight forward. If he wishes, there will be less trouble with the summons and written plea of guilty and the court process for a minor traffic offence. If he accepts a fixed penalty he will know where he stands and know that he has to pay £10 for a non-endorsable offence and £20 for an endorsable offence.
  We are tightening up the way in which fixed penalties are enforced. The main area in which people are familiar with them is the parking ticket. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) said, everyone knows that parking tickets are not as effectively enforced as one would wish. Under clause 33 all fixed penalty offences will be enforced as if they were fines. Although the system for enforcing fines is not fully effective, it is more effective than that for enforcing parking tickets. It will enable the magistrates to take fairly rapid action.
  I shall deal briefly with the fears expressed by some hon. Members, who on the whole welcomed the clause, but understandably felt that there were matters about which motorists and the general public would have to be reassured. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that only a policeman will deal with moving traffic offences and that traffic wardens will be confined to their present powers. When a policeman stops a motorist—I take speeding as an example—he will still have his present options of cautioning the motorist or initiating a prosecution if the offence were a serious speeding offence. Otherwise he can offer the opportunity of a fixed penalty notice to the motorist.
  We rejected the working party's recommendation that it should be a requirement that all motorists should carry their driving licence. The motorist can still choose whether he wishes to carry his driving licence. If he has been stopped for an offence that carries an endorsement he will be asked whether he wants a fixed penalty; if he agrees he will need to produce his licence.
  Various people have expressed doubts about that, but the policeman needs to inspect the licence. He needs to know whether there are endorsements upon it to make sure that he does not give a fixed penalty notice and allow someone to drive away who has so many points under the new totting-up arrangements that he is about to be disqualified if convicted of the offence.
  If the motorist chooses to carry his licence and to accept a fixed penalty he is still protected. If afterwards, when he has thought about it, he decides that he was not guilty of the offence and wants to contest it he can go to the courts

  941
  and dispute his liability in the same way as he can now. At any stage he can bring the process of fixed penalty to an end in that way. It is only if he accepts the fixed penalty and does not pay within the set time to the office to which he is directed that further steps will be taken as the magistrates begin to enforce the fines. The procedures then followed by the magistrates courts will be under the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. I believe, contrary to some fears, that those provisions would prove effective in practice.
  The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness asked why we did not exclude endorsable offences from the fixed penalty system. That would take away most of the savings, because they represent a large proportion of the 600,000 cases that are being taken out of the police courts. I cite again the obvious example of speeding. The motorist and the courts will benefit from taking them out.
  That is a guide to the Bill's main provisions. I shall with the insistence of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North deal in Committee with the suggestion that nuclear and germ warfare are somehow wrapped up in clause 39.
  I commend the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bill).

  TRANSPORT [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the disposal by the National Bus Company and their subsidiaries of property, rights and liabilities, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of—

  946

  (a) any provision of that Act authorising expenditure by the Secretary of State for or in connection with making loans to or acquiring shares in or other securities of any Government-controlled company interested in property formerly held as or in connection with a Government testing station, and the remission of loans so made; and

  (b) any provision of that Act providing for the payment of compensation to a harbour authority or any other person who suffers injury, loss or damage in consequence of anything done in pursuance of an authorisation or direction given under that Act to a harbour authority by the Secretary of State; and

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State as interest on or in repayment of loans made by him to any such company as is mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) above, or in right of, or on the disposal of, any shares in or other securities of any such company which have been acquired by him—[Mr.Lang.]

  Prisoners of War (Payments)
  Motion made, and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the vexed question of what happened to the residue of the pay deducted from British officer prisoners of war who were held in prisoner of war camps in Germany and Italy during the last war. Those deductions conformed with the principles laid down in the 1929 Geneva convention. This subject has already been debated in another place, on 20 January, at the instigation of Lord Kimberley. The matter has also been extensively covered in the press and by the BBC.
  I raise the matter again tonight because I am not convinced that successive Governments since 1945 have done as much as they could to reimburse officer prisoners of war for the losses of pay that they suffered as prisoners of the Germans and Italians, or to explain why, when they failed to agree a settlement with the West German Government in 1950 about compensation paid to that Government for moneys paid to our prisoners of war, they then paid that money into the Treasury. I shall seek to elaborate those two points.
  In an article in The Daily Telegraph in 1980, accusations were made that our officer prisoners of war had been done out of pay belonging to them at the end of the war, to the tune of at least £1 million. As a result of that article and of pressure in Parliament, a working group was set up in the Ministry of Defence to look into the matter. It was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie). It sought to investigate all the complaints that had come to light. The report of the working study group was published at the end of 1980.
  Alas, far from stifling the debate, the report has been a continuing source of controversy. One reason is that those who had been in prisoner of war camps challenged many of its assertions. Another reason is that a committee of former prisoners of war decided to check its facts and figures against such evidence and records as they could research. Subsequently, they produced a seven-page document headed "Errors and Omissions in the Working Group's report". By anyone's standards, it is a damning indictment of the working group report. That they were more right than wrong in what they wrote was accepted by the Minister of State in the debate on 20 January in another place, when he said that it
  "may well alter or amplify some of the more detailed points made in the working group's report.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 1982; Vol. 426, c. 680.]
  It does that and it does more, for it casts doubts on whether the working group's report is an accurate account of the way that officer prisoners of war were refunded for issues of often worthless camp money on German and Italian prisoner of war camps—that is, when such issues were made at all.
  I do not propose to go into details of how these payments were made, except to say that a portion of the report claims that during the war the senior British officers in each prisoner of war camp informed the Red Cross when camp money was not being issued or was valueless because there was nothing to spend it on. It adds that this information was apparently sent back to the United
  948
  Kingdom and each individial account was re-credited with the deductions previously made if the officer was not receiving camp money as he should.
  From that reassuring sentence it might be assumed that no officer prisoner of war could possibly have any sense of grievance at the end of the war. However, as the Comptroller and Auditor General stated in 1946:
  "When Germany collapsed and the bulk of prisoners returned it was impossible generally to obtain reliable information as to the prisoners' accounts, and settlements have been made largely on the basis of prisoners' declarations."
  That assumes that the returning prisoners of war knew how to claim for refunds, for it is readily admitted that the booklet "To All British Commonwealth Ex-Prisoners of War" dated February 1945, which all prisoners of war were meant to receive before repatriation, was in fact received by only a tiny minority of them. Added to that, a person suddenly freed after years in a prisoner of war camp does not think rationally or with the calculation that the Minister of State suggested.
  In a letter sent to Lord Kimberley, one such former prisoner of war wrote:
  "I would respectfully say to Viscount Trenchard, that his understanding of why Prisoners of War would not have made earlier representation, is at fault. The fact is that the state of mind of almost anyone in that situation, was one of bewilderment, euphoria, or even in some cases, melancholy, certainly not quite normal. In my own case, I was a Prisoner of War for five years to the day. During that time I, like others, went through times that mentally were difficult to bridge. When I was in fact released my state of mind was such, that I did not go home for a fortnight, because the sense of change was too acute. When I did arrive home, I was not yet 25 years of age."
  Perhaps that letter says all that needs to be said about a prisoner of war's attitude of mind on returning immediately after the end of hostilities in 1945. Perhaps it explains why the Ministry of Defence received about 2,000 letters from former prisoners of war after the article appeared in The Daily Telegraph in 1980 and why five former prisoners of war who are known to me—two of whom live in my constituency—tell me that they received nothing except worthless "laager marks" when they were in prisoner of war camps. They told me that they received no refunds on return to Britain.
  So much for whether prisoners of war received proper refunds. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me if I quote from the letter that he sent me on 10 November 1981 in order to sum up so far. He wrote:
  "Arrangements were made for adjusting officers' accounts on repatriation. There is evidence that arrangements on these lines were put into effect though whether every individual got his due is not impossible to say".
  At the beginning, I said that the deductions of pay from officer prisoners of war were made so that at the end of the war, Italy and Germany could be compensated for the camp money issued to our men. During hostilities and at the end of May 1945, 4,500 Army officers had been prisoners of war. In addition, 2,600 RAF officers and 400 Royal Navy and Royal Marine officers had been prisoners of war.
  As it happens, I have a photostat of one of the pay slips given to an officer who fortunately did not spend all his time as a prisoner of war in a German prisoner of war camp, although he was placed in Colditz for part of his imprisonment. The pay slip belonged to the late Airey Neave and is for May 1941. It shows that in May 1941 his total pay for the month, as a Lieutenant in the Royal

  949
  Artillery was £21 3s. 8d. of which he paid £3 2s. Od. as income duty. He was deducted £5 8s. Od., as the pay slip states, for an
  "advance made by enemy government".
  Approximately 30 per cent. of his pay after tax was theoretically made over to a fund that would be made payable to the German Government at the end of the war, to compensate for the money that he was said to have received. In all, the 7,500 British officers who were prisoners of war had £1.7 million deducted from their pay during the war, or on average £6 Os. 6d. per officer per month.
  If we accept that such refunds as were made account for about 40 per cent. of that money—I base my figures on such information as the Ministry of Defence has made available—it follows that 60 per cent. of the £1.7 million was held by the Government to pay back the German and Italian Governments at the end of the war. That is rather more than £1 million in terms of 1945 exchange rates.
  What happened at the end of the war? Again, in the Minister's letter to me of 10 November 1981, he wrote:
  "Money was not paid over to the Germans and the Italians after the war because in the settlement with Italy there was a mutual waiver of claims and in the absence of any settlement with Germany there was in effect a mutual waiver."
  I ask the House to note the words
  "in the absence of any settlement with Germany".
  Therefore, the £1 million deducted from the 7,500 British officers who had the misfortune to be prisoners of war and that was deducted to cover an
  "advance made by enemy government".
  was not needed for that purpose.
  In equity one might then have supposed that the money would have been returned to those to whom it belonged—the officer prisoners of war. I am talking about a period five years after the war, when pay records for all three Services were in existence. Instead and inevitably, the money was paid into the Treasury, where it has remained ever since. At no time was Parliament informed that this unbelievable decision had been made and no reference was made to it in the working group's report.
  Yet that is the nub of the matter. More than £1 million deducted from officer prisoners of war unaccountably was paid to the Treasury rather than to those from whom it was taken when the Government discovered that they did not have to reimburse the Germans. All that the survivors of 7,500 prisoners of war are offered by way of explanation is a working group report that avoids that issue and is full of inaccuracies. In justice, I ask my hon. Friend to consider the points that I have made. I believe that there is a debt of honour that a Government one day must pay to those brave men. Tonight my hon. Friend has an opportunity to show that this Government intend to pay that debt of honour.
  I do not ask that the money should now be distributed among the prisoners of war, nor have any of those to whom I have spoken asked for that. They have said that the working group report is not good enough. An independent inquiry is needed if the matter is to be laid to rest and this debt of honour paid in one way or another.
  10.26 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for raising the
  950
  matter this evening because I believe that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding and I welcome the opportunity to answer the points that have been raised.
  Put most simply, as it was in the Sunday Express leader the other day, the allegation is that officer prisoners of war have been swindled out of money properly due to them and that successive Governments have refused to redeem that debt of honour. That is a serious allegation. However, it is, I can assure the House, a travesty of the facts. The facts are much more complex and while the outline is clear much of the detail will never be known because of the routine destruction of pay records.
  In the time at my disposal, I shall not be able to cover all the points on this complicated subject, but I refer hon. Members to the speech made in another place on 20 January by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. The story broke in August 1980 when The Daily Telegraph ran a series of articles making serious allegations about pay administration relating to officer prisoners of war in the Second World War. As a result, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State immediately set up an investigation under the direction of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. Following a detailed inquiry, my hon. Friend reported to the House on 31 October 1980 and a copy of his working group's report was laid in the Library of the House.
  In brief, the Government's conclusions were that there was no evidence of gross mismanagement or impropriety, as had been alleged. All those matters had been carefully considered at the time. The Comptroller and Auditor General considered the question of prisoner of war pay most thoroughly in his report of 1945–46, which the Public Accounts Committee examined in detail. I firmly believe that there is no case for a Government, 35 years later, to re-open the matter when previous Governments have considered the question in such great detail and with the benefit of far more information than is available to us now.
  My hon. Friend's recent report has been criticised as inaccurate and misleading. It is true that further research has altered our view of certain details of the report, as my hon. Friend has just said, but the general picture given is still substantially correct. As my hon. Friend explained to members of the voluntary committee of former POWs last May, the conclusions of the Government are unchanged.
  Under the provisions of the Geneva Convention, all British officer prisoners of war and "protected" noncombatant personnel were entitled to receive from the detaining powers, during captivity, pay at the rate appropriate to their corresponding rank in the Armed Forces of that Power. Consequently, the prisoner of war during captivity had two pay accounts, the one at home in sterling and the other in Germany in marks. Suitable arrangements had to be made to make necessary adjustments between the two during captivity and after repatriation. In order to avoid double provision, corresponding reductions were made in the pay credited to the home account, and the intention was that any money in the camp account unspent and still credited at the end of the war would be refunded to the officer's home account. on repatriation.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, may I ask him whether the exchange rate

  951
  between the laager marks and the English pound could be described as being on an equitable basis, or were laager marks in fact far less valuable?
  Mr. Wiggin: I understand that exchange was carried out through the protecting Power, which in this case was Switzerland. Presumably the Swiss had some arrangement on exchange that was satisfactory to them. I understand that the British Government received payment in adequate currency—presumably either pounds or Swiss francs, I do not know precisely. That may be how it was done in practice. I shall give examples in a moment.
  The first major criticism is that, through lack of concern or inefficiency, little was done to notify prisoners of the financial arrangements. It is difficult after such a passage of time to prove one way or the other how much prisoners knew of the arrangements. There was no question of concealment. Indeed, the matter was raised in several parliamentary questions. For example, on 24 April 1941 Mr. Law, a War Office Minister, speaking of prisoners of war stated that
  "apart from Income Tax and National Health Insurance contributions, where these are payable, the only deduction made from his pay is in respect of pay issued to him by the German or Italian Government which varies according to his rank."—[Official Report, 24 April 1941; Vol. 371, c. 260.]
  There was certainly no lack of concern. An interdepartmental committee, reporting to a War Office Minister, met regularly throughout the war to consider the financial problems of prisoners of war. We still have many of the papers of that committee. We know that a camp leader's guide was produced, although, we now know that this was not issued until later in the war—too late to reach Italian camps. I have already referred to the questions that were being asked in the House at the time.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the rate of exchange. Under the Geneva Convention this was a matter for negotiation. A compromise rate was agreed of 15 Reichsmarks to the pound, compared with a market rate at the beginning of the war of 10.77 Reichsmarks to the pound. More importantly, the Government decided that the same rate of exchange should be used for credits of pay refunded after the war, so there could be no unfairness about that.
  The detailed arrangements that were made at the end of the war to deal with prisoners' accounts on repatriation are quite well documented and were described in my hon. Friend's report. It is alleged that, in practice, these arrangements broke down under the weight of numbers and did not operate as planned. There is some evidence that the Army reception centres had to cope with great numbers in a short space of time, but there is no evidence that either the Navy or the RAF arrangements were put under serious strain.
  The crux of the argument relates to the extent to which individual prisoners received refunds at the end of the war. I believe that this lies at the root of the misgivings and, I would say, misunderstandings that have arisen. Of course, we shall never know precisely how much individuals received, because most individual pay records have been destroyed, but the more we look into this, the more evidence we find that the refunds were substantial and widespread.
  I should here explain that home accounts could be credited in three ways; by refund on repatriaton, by credits
  952
  remitted during captivity and by a special tax-free allowance to home accounts of prisoners of the Italians to compensate for the high cost of living in Italian camps.
  As regards the navy, we still hold ledgers that show that nearly all naval officer prisoners received refunds after repatriation averaging about £80. It has been said that the average refunds for those who had been prisoners of stalag luft III were comparatively small. This is probably accounted for by the fact that substantial credits were remitted home by officers from stalag luft III in 1944. It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury should mention Colditz, because we have recently come across an Admiralty file containing a pay record of naval officers brought back from Colditz. This shows that substantial credits were remitted home in addition to the refunds shown in the ledger for these officers. One officer, for example, who had a refund of £13 shown in the ledger, had previously remitted home about £140.
  As regards the Army, a War office letter states that over half of the pay deducted from some 2,000 Army officer prisoners in Italy was refunded, taking account of the special tax-free allowance, which I mentioned previously.
  For the RAF we have the evidence of the suspense account described by my hon Friend in his report. It has been suggested that this may also have covered Dominion officers, but even if this were so, substantial refunds must have been given on a wide scale. These would have included the remittances sent home from stalag luft III, which alone exceeded £100,000.
  In short, I believe that former officer prisoners have not realised the extent to which deductions of pay were re-credited to their accounts during and after the war in the various ways I described. Outstanding questions were considered by Ministers after the war and were the subject of parliamentary questions. The then Prime Minister answered a question on the subject in January 1947.
  The hon. Member mentioned an independent inquiry. If there had been firm evidence of serious impropriety or a complete breakdown of pay administration after the war, we might even now have to re-open the matter and perhaps set up a new inquiry. But as I explained, there is no evidence of this.
  Furthermore, in the most unlikely and, to my mind, inconceivable event that an inquiry did turn up some evidence of impropriety, it would now be impossible to resolve this situation equitably since all pay records and much of the information that would be required have been long since destroyed. If it is accepted, as I believe it must be, that, in general, officers received substantial refunds in accordance with the policy laid down by the Government at that time, it is simply not possible to speak of valid claims for further payments now, as former prisoners are being encouraged to do by the voluntary committee. The committee is not doing former prisoners a service by raising hopes which cannot possibly be fulfilled.
  In a short speech I have not been able to cover every aspect of this complex matter.
  Mr. Michael Mates: Is the Minister going to explain why the sum of just over £1 million, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred to, was credited back to the Treasury? Why was some solution not thought of at the time to give an equitable distribution of those credits?
  Mr. Wiggin: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that 35 years ago I was not responsible for these matters. The Coalition Government of the war, the Labour Government after the war and the Conservative Administration of 1951, all thought that this matter had been correctly handled. The subject was not raised again until 1980, by which time all records and information were lost.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will not the Minister agree one brief point? Do not honour and debts of honour have no time limit and should the edge not always be given to those who suffered in the cause of all our freedom?
  Mr. Wiggin: Nobody is more sympathetic to the problems and difficulties of ex-prisoners of war than the Government, myself or any hon. Gentleman. That is understood. However, the point at issue here is whether there was an injustice. My experience and that of my hon. Friend in these matters is that, if there is thought to be an injustice, it goes forward, is constantly raised in the House and Ministers are questioned about it year after year—if it is such an issue. I cannot believe that, 35 years later, this issue should suddenly have arisen, when all the records have disappeared and when the Government of the day, with all the figures at their disposal, did not have this battle. Prima facie, I believe that this issue has been resurrected incorrectly on the basis of improper fact, as I have been trying to prove.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will not my hon. Friend agree that as a result of what has emerged from The Daily Telegraph article, offers of help for prisoners of war who are disabled or suffering from illness have come forward from the Government. Those offers were not on the table before the inquiry started. The Government are therefore recognising that there is a wrong that has to be put right.
  Mr. Wiggin: It has been considered until now that the vast majority of prisoners, although they suffered, no doubt, great deprivation and mental anguish, did not suffer the physical damage of prisoners in the Far East. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security is taking special steps to identify prisoners of war and to find out whether there are likely to be special problems. It is about now 'that they are likely to be coming forward. We are keen to be compassionate and helpful. It is not, however, on this issue that we are able to assist.
  I hope that I have been able to dispel the misunderstanding that exists on the issue. My noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is to see my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley and some members of his committee later this week. At that meeting, they will go into matters in greater detail than is possible in this debate. I must make clear, as my noble Friend said in another place recently, that the Government remain firmly of the view that there is no case to reconsider our fundamental policies. These matters were considered and settled by the three Governments that I have already mentioned. No steps were taken by the new Conservative Government in 1951 to reopen the matter. I can find no case to reopen it now 36 years after the event, particularly when we are so short of the individual pay records that have all been destroyed.
  I repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will now remain convinced that this is not a matter of malice or of seeking to hide anything. There is just not the evidence available on which these allegations have been based.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Rape (Glasgow)
  Rape (Glasgow)
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  GATT (Tokyo Round)
  GATT (Tokyo Round)
TRADE
  British Tourist Authority and English Tourist Board
  British Tourist Authority and English Tourist Board
  Airports
  Airports
  Shipbuilding (Aid and Credit)
  Shipbuilding (Aid and Credit)
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Republic of China
  Republic of China
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Remedial Education Classes
  Remedial Education Classes
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Metropolitan Police (Cadets)
  Metropolitan Police (Cadets)
  Susantha Karunaratne and Vutek Przbyss
  Susantha Karunaratne and Vutek Przbyss
  Shopping Hours
  Shopping Hours
  Albany Prison (Member's Correspondence)
  Albany Prison (Member's Correspondence)
  Complaints Against the Police
  Complaints Against the Police
  Hospitals (Fires)
  Hospitals (Fires)
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
  Westminster Hall (Disabled Persons)
  Westminster Hall (Disabled Persons)
INDUSTRY
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Exploration Licences
  Exploration Licences
  Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966
  Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966
  Robots
  Robots
DEFENCE
  Ministry of Defence
  Ministry of Defence
  Assessed Contractors
  Assessed Contractors
  Sea Wolf
  Sea Wolf
  JP 233 Fuze
  JP 233 Fuze
  Gazelle Helicopter Aiming Sight
  Gazelle Helicopter Aiming Sight
WALES
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Prostate Gland Operations( Waiting Times)
  Prostate Gland Operations( Waiting Times)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Tenancies
  Farm Tenancies
  Milk
  Milk
  Plants (Imports)
  Plants (Imports)
  Dairy Farms
  Dairy Farms
  Cockles (Imports)
  Cockles (Imports)
  Tractor Safety
  Tractor Safety
EMPLOYMENT
  Young Workers Scheme
  Young Workers Scheme
  Income Maintenance Payments and Allowances
  Income Maintenance Payments and Allowances
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Short-time Working Subsidy
  Short-time Working Subsidy
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
PRIME MINISTER
  North West Region
  North West Region
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Passports
  Passports
  Washington
  Washington
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Military Aircraft
  Military Aircraft
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Government Departments (Organisation)
  Government Departments (Organisation)
  President Reagan
  President Reagan
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Community Enterprise Programme
  Community Enterprise Programme
  Public Sector Manpower
  Public Sector Manpower
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Information Technology (Research)
  Information Technology (Research)
  Universities and Polytechnics (Intakes)
  Universities and Polytechnics (Intakes)
  Disabled Persons (Sports Coaching)
  Disabled Persons (Sports Coaching)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Children (Local Authority Grants)
  Children (Local Authority Grants)
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Student Awards
  Student Awards
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Prostate Gland (Research)
  Prostate Gland (Research)
  Further Education
  Further Education
  State Education (Cost)
  State Education (Cost)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Taxes (Property in Lieu)
  Taxes (Property in Lieu)
  School Uniforms (Cost)
  School Uniforms (Cost)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Officers
  Tax Officers
  Civil Service (Pay)
  Civil Service (Pay)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Word Processors
  Word Processors
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Family Spending Power
  Family Spending Power
  Penlee Lifeboat Disaster Fund
  Penlee Lifeboat Disaster Fund
  Civil Service (Redundancies)
  Civil Service (Redundancies)
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  British Membership (Gains and Losses)
  British Membership (Gains and Losses)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Prostate Gland Operation
  Prostate Gland Operation
  De Lorean Car Company
  De Lorean Car Company
  United States (Commercial Operations)
  United States (Commercial Operations)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Complaints Against the Police
  Complaints Against the Police
  Court of Protection
  Court of Protection
ENVIRONMENT
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Private Developers (Planning Permission)
  Private Developers (Planning Permission)
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Manchester City Council
  Manchester City Council
TRANSPORT
  Fares
  Fares
  Lorries (Accidents)
  Lorries (Accidents)
  Rail Dispute
  Rail Dispute
  Mersey County Council
  Mersey County Council
  M40 (Closure)
  M40 (Closure)
  Bus Revenue Support
  Bus Revenue Support
  Freight Interchanges
  Freight Interchanges
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Multi-site General Hospitals
  Multi-site General Hospitals
  Health Service (Funding)
  Health Service (Funding)
  Physiotherapy Patients
  Physiotherapy Patients
  Arthritis
  Arthritis
  Private Treatment
  Private Treatment
  Elderly Patients (After-care)
  Elderly Patients (After-care)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Mental Health (Amendment) Bill
  Mental Health (Amendment) Bill
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Clinical Mishaps
  Clinical Mishaps
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Special Hospitals (Transfers)
  Special Hospitals (Transfers)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  British Chiropractors Association
  British Chiropractors Association
  European Community (Doctors)
  European Community (Doctors)
  Hospital Treatment
  Hospital Treatment
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Cervical Cytology
  Cervical Cytology
  Overseas Doctors
  Overseas Doctors
  Enfield and Haringey Family Practitioner Committee
  Enfield and Haringey Family Practitioner Committee
  Action on Smoking and Health
  Action on Smoking and Health
  "CHC News"
  "CHC News"
  Married Women (Household Duties Test)
  Married Women (Household Duties Test)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Fuel Costs (Assistance)
  Fuel Costs (Assistance)
  National Health Service (Industrial Relations)
  National Health Service (Industrial Relations)
  Dental Therapists
  Dental Therapists
  Seasonal Workers
  Seasonal Workers
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Special Claims Control Teams
  Special Claims Control Teams
  Prescription and Dental Charges
  Prescription and Dental Charges
  Adopted Children (Name Registration)
  Adopted Children (Name Registration)
  Dental Services (London)
  Dental Services (London)
  Family Spending Power
  Family Spending Power
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Prostate Gland Operations
  Prostate Gland Operations
  Attendance Allowances
  Attendance Allowances
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Social Security Programme
  Social Security Programme
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  Health and Personal Social Services (Cash Block)
  Health and Personal Social Services (Cash Block)
SCOTLAND
  Plessey Plant, Bathgate
  Plessey Plant, Bathgate
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Housing
  Housing
  Rates
  Rates
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Prostate Gland Operations (Waiting Time)
  Prostate Gland Operations (Waiting Time)
  Education
  Education
  Student Awards
  Student Awards
  Sewerage System (Dundee)
  Sewerage System (Dundee)
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Rape (Law Review)
  Rape (Law Review)
  Rape Crisis Centres
  Rape Crisis Centres
  Harbours
  Harbours
  Sex-related Crimes (Police Units)
  Sex-related Crimes (Police Units)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

M.1: Maintenance Work
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what efforts have been made to ensure that maintenance work on any given stretch of the M.1 is completed in the shortest practicable time and what is the policy with regard to such work being continued in periods of lower traffic use over weekends.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made every effort to ensure that repairs to the M.1 are completed in the shortest practicable time in order to minimise the disruption of traffic. Repairs are phased to avoid congestion. The Department of Transport continue to encourage accelerated contracts which make maximum use of night-time and weekend working, but wherever possible work is suspended when particularly heavy traffic is expected, such as at major sporting events and Bank Holidays. The department's traffic management techniques continue to improve and during 1982 they propose to introduce new designs of lane diversion to speed up the flow of traffic.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. But would the noble Earl recall that I asked this Question 18 months ago, and I was then given an Answer in pretty much the same phraseology as the words used by the noble Earl this afternoon? Would he not agree that over the last year, 1981, very little has been done to improve the methods of speeding-up maintenance, and is it not a fact that anyone coming down the M.1 over the weekend will see miles and miles of lane closures and absolutely no work being done?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's endorsement of the continuity of the department's policy. So far as motorway improvements are concerned, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, for the next three or four years the M.1 will need to have something like 11 major contracts performed on it each year. Until that is done, we shall not be able to ensure that it will be able to go on for the next 20 years.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend try to do something to make sure that the hard shoulder is more used when one of the other lanes is blocked? Is he aware that, frequently, one sees more effort being put into disposing plastic cones down miles and
90
miles of motorway, than one does on any repairs actually going on on the motorway? This is restrictive and very disheartening and there cannot be much feeling of urgency at present. Would my noble friend try to do something with the 11 disruptions, which he forecasts are likely to happen on the motorway in the next year?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, one of the troubles about the hard shoulders is that, unfortunately, they were not designed to bear the heavy traffic which a lane diversion involves. These hard shoulders are now being reinforced, with the result that they can be used more. So far as cones are concerned, the fact that no work is visible often hides the presence of plant and equipment, uncompleted repairs, damaged barriers or sections of relaid carriageway which are still drying out. It is the new policy that only a limited distance will now be done at any one time, which I hope will mean that my noble friend will not see such a plethora of cones being laid.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the advice given to the Department of Transport that it is not so much the number of vehicles which causes damage to the track, as the weight which has to be sustained by individual axles? Has the noble Earl seen the calculations on the increased 38 tonnes lorry weights, which show that, according to the Government's suggestions, there would sometimes be an axle load of 12 tonnes, which would cause an immense amount of damage and result in the M.1 hardly ever being open?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I shall study the noble Lord's figures. I do not think I have them in front of me at the moment. The overwhelming evidence from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory is that road wear caused by lorries depends on axle weight, rather than total weight. All the indications point to 40 tonnes vehicles, spread over five axles, causing less wear than 32 tonnes vehicles, spread over four axles.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Earl, Lord Avon, not ignoring the important point which my noble friend Lord Beswick has raised; namely, that in various parts of London—and one notices it almost every day, travelling through London on the way to the Lords and leaving the Lords for some other place—preparations have been entered into to undertake work, but there are no workmen available? This happens all over the place. I have noticed it for several months now, where arrangements have been made, there is equipment, the place has been covered and traffic has to be diverted, but no workmen appear. Are there no workmen available in London to undertake the work for which contracts have been entered into? I beg the noble Earl to take note of that.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I am not in any way trying to avoid anything which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has asked me, and I am looking forward to his next supplementary which I see he is about to put. So far as the roads in London are concerned, they are not trunk roads which are the responsibility of my

91
right honourable friend, but are the responsibility of the Greater London Conncil, and I am sure that it will take note of the noble Lord's remark.
Lord Beswick: My Lords—
Lord Derwent: It is our turn. Is my noble friend aware that I live 200 miles up the M.1 and, therefore, go up and down it all the time? I think that the way in which road works were handled the year before last was appalling, but does my noble friend realise that in the last year there seems to have been a great improvement?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for coming to my support in that way. I have in front of me the 1982 plans for the first 100 kilometres of the M.1, and I shall be happy to show him how carefully these plans are made.
Lord Beswick: My Lords—
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he can encourage the Ministry to let the local radio stations put out advance notice of repairs taking place? Some of us, like my noble friend, go up and down the M.1 a very great deal, and it sometimes takes well over one hour longer. If we had notice that certain sections were to be repaired at certain times, we could allow for that in our schedules.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. My department is introducing new motorway signs informing motorists of likely delays and, where possible, how to avoid them. I will make sure that my noble friend's point about local broadcasting stations is brought to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the difference between myself and his noble friend sitting behind him is that I drive down the M.1 with my eyes open while he appears to have his closed? Would the noble Earl further take into account the report which I saw in the Daily Telegraph on 7th December of last year in which they say that at one M.1 roadworks alone—one M.1 roadworks alone—in the period between May and November there were no fewer than 300 accidents involving 800 vehicles at an estimated cost of £3 million? Does he really think that this justifies the optimism and the complacency shown by his noble friend behind him?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have not got the 7th December figures in front of me, but I will look at the article. The number of accidents on motorways declined in 1981, despite an increased programme of repairs. The department continues to make every effort to increase safety and has recently prepared a television film which is now being screened to emphasise to drivers in negotiating work sites the importance of speed limits and keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, while we are speaking of information put out by local radio, just to say something nice to the noble Earl for once, may I ask him whether he is aware that everybody appreciates the work which both local radio and national radio do in informing us of the various trouble spots on our roads throughout the country?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I myself never miss listening in my bath to London broadcasting in the morning.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, before we leave this Question may we ask the Government whether they could do more to press forward with the construction of the M.25 which is desperately needed to relieve traffic in and around London?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that is a different question. However, I have stressed in two recent debates that the Government are pressing ahead with the M.25 as fast as they can.

Nuclear Weapons: The Pope's Message
2.46 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been their response to the mission of scientists sent by the Pope to warn them of the risk of destroying humanity in a nuclear war.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcomed the Pope's message and his initiative in addressing Heads of State and Governments on the subject of nuclear weapons. The prevention of war, whether nuclear or conventional, remains the overriding priority of Britain's and NATO's defence and arms control policy.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. May I ask him whether, in view of the fact that this mission is being sent to the four great powers, including the Soviet Union, and represents the conclusions of the Pontifical Academy of Science—which is very important—the Government will give attention to the recommendations it has made for the ending of nuclear weapons, which it regards as no longer possible if mankind is to survive?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, nobody doubts the horrors which would follow from a nuclear exchange. That is why our policy seeks to prevent that.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, though the assurances here given by the Government are no doubt well intentioned, the arms

93
themselves, and nuclear arms in particular, continue to pile up on all sides while this goes on? Will the Government take no step to break the chain which appears to bind them to American decisions? Are the Government incapable of any initiative on this matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord is suggesting that we in this country should disarm unilaterally, I have to tell him that that would make war more, not less, likely.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while in no way excusing the actions of the Soviet Government in many places, there is very, very grave anxiety about some of the utterances of the American administration? Since we do not expect him to have a direct influence on the Soviet Government, would Her Majesty's Government be good enough to make representations to the American administration about those anxieties?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the case that, for example, the United States recently put forward the proposal for the zero option which is being pressed now in the INF talks, as they are called, in Geneva. The British Government wholly support that initiative.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether this same mission of scientists has been received by the Russian Government and, if so, what the latter's response was?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware that the mission has yet been received by the Soviet Government. I have no information on that point, but I have no doubt that they will be.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while the Minister is continually giving us assurances of the support of the Government for multilateral disarmament, of which I am in favour, how can he reconcile that with the policies of his representative at Geneva, who is opposing proposals for multilateral disarmament in nuclear weapons?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the proposals that come forward from time to time have to be examined in the context of whether they are balanced and verifiable. When such proposals come forward, we shall hasten to support them. When they are not of that kind, then we shall not.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, has the noble Lord been encouraged by the fact that His Holiness the Pope has not stated his support for unilateral disarmament and that the Leader of our Established Church, His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, has also not given his support to unilateral disarmament, whereas the leaders of the Church—and all the Churches, so far as one can tell—have been seeking very hard to call upon the faithful of all Churches to pray and work energetically for verifiable and mutual multilateral disarmament? Is not this of some encouragement to the Government, who, as I
94
understand it, are also working energetically and determinedly for verifiable, mutual, multilateral disarmament?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, His Holiness the Pope and the right reverend Primate the Archbishop are, of course, very sensible people, and that is why they adopt the views they do.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the proposals at Geneva which the representative of this Government has opposed include verification and inspection?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware to which particular proposals the noble Lord is referring, but they doubtless fail to meet some other essential criteria.
Lord Davies of Leek: We need not worry, my Lords; you cannot be deader than dead.

Ratepayers in London: Refund
2.51 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to impress on local authorities the urgent need to refund to ratepayers who have already paid the GLC supplementary rate precept such part as covers the now illegal demand in respect of London Transport and thus avoid those who have already paid being put at a financial disadvantage compared to those who have not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the London Boroughs Association has issued advice to their member authorities which provides that ratepayers who have already paid the supplementary rate in question should receive a credit against next year's rate, or, if they request it, a refund. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State welcomed this advice in a speech on 18th January in another place, and I understand that all London boroughs are now acting upon it.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask him this: In respect of ratepayers who promptly paid the rate demand, as compared to ratepayers who did not comply with that demand, are not the former put at a financial disadvantage? Should the local authorities not be willing to give credit in respect of the moneys which they have been holding for long periods of time, and would not the easiest way of giving this credit be not to return the money to the ratepayer but to give a credit note for interest due when the next rate demand comes in April?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, one obviously has sympathy with those who did pay in reply to the original request,

95
but the law on the matter of interest is far from clear and makes no explicit reference to the payment of interest, either in discretionary or mandatory terms. Some boroughs have apparently concluded that in these circumstances it would be right for them to pay interest, while others have doubts and are not doing so. Of course, this must be a matter for individual boroughs.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be appropriate for those of us who were foolish enough to pay on demand to withhold payment of the next bill that comes in until we have earned, so to speak, the interest due to us by delaying payment for that amount of time?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as one who did not pay originally, I understand exactly what the noble Baroness is saying, but I am sure she would hardly expect me to endorse her proposal.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not difficult to justify retention by local authorities of money paid in response to a demand which has unlawful? If an authority so acts, is it not putting itself in legal peril?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear that in fact the London Boroughs Association have suggested that if anyone requests a refund they will make it. It is my information that they are in fact doing that. But, of course, we are now in February; the year ends at the end of March and therefore the new demand will be due on 1st April. Therefore, one can see why those who take that line perhaps prefer not to make the repayment unless it is specifically requested. If it is, then, as my noble friend so rightly says, they are entitled to refund it, and my information is that they are willing to do so.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if there is doubt on this question of interest and if there is lack of uniformity as between various councils, is it not the duty of the Government to clarify the situation? Will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to make a Statement in clarification.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the point the noble Lord raises is a fair point. We are very aware of the difficulties which have been thrown up by this case. We are at the moment actively considering whether the current law needs to be amended, but at this moment in time it is too early for me to say what, if any, action will be taken. But the point is very much on the table.
Lord Segal: My Lords, since certain ratepayers have been foolish enough to grant local authorities the right to deduct taxes automatically as they increase, should not the local authorities have the graciousness to make a refund to these ratepayers without having to be specially asked to do so?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think it would be reasonable, in fairness to the authorities, to say this is a
96
situation without precedent, certainly to my knowledge. It is a new situation which arises, and it is for that reason that, when they offer either to credit or to make refund, I think that is a fair proposal. But, in any case, I have gone on to say that the law is not clear; the Government are aware that this is difficult and we are looking to see whether or not we should do something about it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not a fact that if one estimates the cost of administering the refund and the cost of computing the interest and dealing with correspondence with ratepayers, the cost will be such that another supplementary rate demand may well be made?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the first part of what he said, because I do know that a number of local authorities have worked out that it would be very costly and that is why they have been hesitant. I think the noble Lord's question highlights once more that this is an area that requires further clarification.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, could the noble Lord say when it is likely that clarification will take place, and, if and when it does take place, will it be retrospective in respect of the interest which would now be due?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I fear I am not able to help my noble friend on that. I suspect that he did not really think that I could.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the clarification, which the Minister says is likely, include determination of the criteria for determining the amount which is legal and the amount which is not legal? The noble Lord will recall that in a Statement which was made in this House three weeks ago he was unable to give me an answer to that question.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we start to move into a whole new area when we start to discuss the reasonableness, and all that goes with it. With respect, I would suggest that this is getting away from the Question.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I inform the House that, in view of the number of noble Lords who have signified their intention of speaking on the Second Reading of the Shops Bill this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has decided not to ask his Unstarred Question this afternoon. The Unstarred Question will now be taken on Tuesday, 16th February next.

Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision for the preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest, and of buildings in conservation areas, and for con-

97
nected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time— (Lord Vaizey.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.

Transport (Finance) Bill
3 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before your Lordships contains a number of somewhat technical financial provisions affecting our transport industries. It is a small Bill, a mere five clauses—and one whose purpose is to maintain the existing statutory structure of financial controls, rather than to introduce new policies. So I do not anticipate that I shall need to detain your Lordships long in introducing it. The first three clauses of the Bill concern the railways, and I should say straightaway that I find it especially sad that I should be introducing them on a day when the system is at a standstill and when the whole future of the railways is under attack.
Clause 1 increases British Rail's borrowing limit. This is the long-standing statutory control over the aggregate amount of borrowing of all kinds and from all sources which the board may have outstanding at any one time. The limit now stands at £900 million. Clause 1 increases this to £1,100 million, and provides, as in the present legislation, power for a further increase, by order, up to a final limit of £1,300 million. The need for this increase arises not from any change in the board's financial policy or structure, nor from any special anticipated needs, but principally from the passage of time in an inflationary economy. It is expected that the new limits will be sufficient for the board's borrowing requirements for the coming five years or so.
Clause 2 concerns the grant paid by the railways board to meet the net costs they incur in running the passenger railway, what is termed the PSO—public service obligation—grant. Under the Railways Act 1974 there is a statutory limit on the total amount of PSO grant which may be paid. This limit applies to all PSO grant payments for the period since the end of 1978. The present limit of £3,000 million is expected to be reached in the course of 1983. Clause 2 provides for a new limit of £6,000 million, with a power for a further increase, by order, up to a final figure of £10,000 million. These may sound exceptionally large increases, but it must be remembered that the sums are cumulative. Again, the provision does not reflect any policy change, nor should it be taken to suggest any forecast of a change in the annual level of grant in real terms.
Clause 3 is a new provision. At various times in recent years the railways board have considered membership of the European company known as
98
Eurofima, which assists national railway companies to acquire modern rolling stock through the provision of finance. For the board to become a member, it would be necessary for the Government to guarantee the discharge of its liabilities to the company. At present there is no power to give such a guarantee. Clause 3 provides that power. I should emphasise that this is only an enabling measure. It will be initially for the board, and subsequently for the Government, to assess whether it believes any particular proposal for membership is beneficial to the board.
Clause 4 increases the borrowing limit of the National Bus Company from the present £220 million to £250 million, with a power for a further increase, by order, to £275 million. As with British Rail, there is no policy issue lying behind the increase. The passage of time has brought the level of the company's borrowings quite close to the existing limit. The company's present plans, and the rigorous financial target they have been set by the Government, do not suggest an extension of current levels of borrowing in the foreseeable future, but it is none the less prudent to provide an adequate margin for contingencies. In real terms, the new limit is significantly lower than the value of the present £200 million, when it was set back in 1975.
Clause 5 increases, by £200 million, the limit on Government financial assistance to the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. The existing limit of £160 million was set by the Ports (Financial Assistance) Act 1981. That Act was an emergency measure to enable help to be given to the PLA and MDHC, to prevent them having to close down. Since then both ports have, at the Government's request, prepared corporate plans for a return to profitability as soon as possible. In the light of these plans, and of the comments received from the two firms of accountants who are advising the Government— Price, Waterhouse in the case of the PLA, and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell in the case of MDHC— we have decided to make further funds available to the ports.
The increase of £200 million in the statutory ceiling is based on our best estimate of the maximum amount of money that may be needed over the next three or four years for a return to viability. I should emphasise, however, that funds will only be released to the two ports to the extent that the Government are satisfied that they are needed for a return to profitability, and we intend to continue with our monitoring of the ports' financial performance. There is therefore no question of the ports being handed a blank cheque.
The PLA and the MDHC have made striking progress in reducing their surplus manpower, and about 1,000 registered dock workers have left the industry in each port in the last year. But further reductions are still likely to be needed, and one of the purposes for which the Government will be giving assistance is for the necessary severance payments. In addition, there will be loans for essential capital investment. Grants will also be available to meet operating losses, but only during 1982. In the Government's view there must be a clear end in sight to operating subsidies, and PLA and MDHC have been told that they must manage without grants for this purpose after the end of the year. We have asked them to submit action

99
plans showing specifically how they intend to meet this remit; only when the Government have been able to consider these plans will it be possible to say what precise measures will have to be taken in each port, and what their detailed financial implications are.
Despite the massive changes of recent years, London and Liverpool remain ports of national importance, and I believe there is general agreement that it was right to give them assistance so that they could continue in operation. Both management and workforce have already carried through much of the rationalisation and improvement that was necessary, but more remains to be done. However, the way forward to profitability is now a good deal clearer than it was a year ago, and, with the assistance of the funds for which this clause will provide, it will now be up to the PLA and MDHC to meet the tough but attainable objective the Government have set them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beliwin.)
3.8 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for so clearly explaining the provisions of the Bill. The Minister said that he would not be detaining the House long, but this Bill involves questions of financing policy and as we have so little opportunity to discuss these matters I may be a little longer in dealing with it.
From these Benches we welcome the Bill in so far as it is an indication that the Government recognise that the problem has been brought about by a recession and inflation on the borrowing limits. But as I think the noble Lord has said, the Bill does not provide any monies: it only gives borrowing powers up to certain limits. Therefore, the Bill begs the real issue: How is British Rail to have sufficient funds to replace or renew track equipment and rolling stock and also make provision for electrification?
It may seem a little ironic that we are discussing these matters in view of the present difficulties in British Rail. I am certain that noble Lords will share with me the view that we wish to make no comments which can make the situation more difficult, or to apportion blame. But I am certain that one thing is essential; the dispute should be clarified and settled at the earliest opportunity in the interests of the travelling public, in the interests of the ASLEF members and members of the other unions involved and, indeed, in the interests of British Rail itself, otherwise some of the matters with which I am going to deal may be of little importance. This country must have a rail system, but the present situation is very dangerous for that future.
The Under-Secretary of State in another place has made it perfectly clear—and his statements are absolutely clear—that:
"The replacement infrastructure of the whole railway, including track relaying, station refurbishment and so on, is paid for by British Rail out of its revenue."—
and that is an important point which we ought to note—
"Similarly, investment even in rolling stock for the non-commercial railway is paid for out of the public service obligation and is financed by grants".
100
It has been made absolutely clear that the borrowing powers are for rolling stock and for similar items for the commercial railway—that is, the freight and intercity services. There is the important point that, if borrowing powers are increased, there would be little benefit either to British Rail or, as we shall see, to the National Bus Company, if there is inadequate change in the external financing limits.
In the 1980 report of British Rail, which is the last report we have, the chairman said at page 8:
"Planned limits on railway investment have remained virtually unchanged for nearly 10 years. The reality is that to meet our financial targets we shall deliberately underspend by £50 million below an already inadequate ceiling in 1981. If a rising profile of investment is not agreed, and desperately soon, much improvement in service quality and productivity will be long delayed".
Ministers have generally agreed with that observation made by the chairman of British Rail.
The 1980 annual report of British Rail showed that at the end of December 1980 capital debt to the Secretary of State was £429 million and, with other loans, total borrowing was £632 million. I am sure the Minister will agree that there is little hope of repaying that capital debt. The report also pointed out that, although borrowing powers were limited to £900 million, as the Minister has stated in his introductory remarks, it had not been possible to exercise some £268 million of that sum due to the limit on external financing.
The provisions of Clause 1, to raise the figure from £900 million to £1,100 million or even to £1,300 million, if need be, will be of little value if there is still to be a serious constraint on the external financing limit. A reference to the report also shows that British Rail has to pay interest on borrowings, irrespective of whether or not a loss is made in any one year. So we find that in 1979 there was a surplus of £62 million before interest and interest of £58 million was paid. In 1980 there was a loss of £8 million, but interest of nearly £64 million had to be paid. The position is clearly set out in paragraph 5.10 of the document, Rail Policy, which was issued by British Rail last March. It reads:
"Our only source of medium and long term borrowing is the Government's National Loans Fund. We are constrained by cash limits on the PSO, by our investment ceiling and by our External Financing Limits. All of this is subject to the annual Investment and Financing Review with the Department of Transport—a 5–10 year rolling programme, and the Department have the option of examining all projects of over £3·5 million".
That latter point indicates the accountability which, of course, public institutions have to undergo, and which others do not have to experience.
Another important point also arises, again, in the 1980 report at page 19, dealing with the ratio of self-financing investment. The report, in its accounts, says:
"The Board is not able to achieve the desirable objective of wholly financing the replacement of its assets from internally generated funds even though investment has again been constrained below the agreed investment ceiling, reflecting not the Board's inability to spend, but the strict measures adopted to contain total expenditure within the external financing limits".
The Secretary of State has stated that, within the investment ceiling set by the Government, British Rail must organise and operate its business to make available the funds for investment. But British Rail does that as much as it can and a substantial amount of investment is generated from revenue. Time and time again

101
it has been stated by noble Lords in this House that some 70 per cent. of British Rail's costs are met from fares and charges, to a much higher extent than most other European railways. As we know, the subsidies given to British Rail are much lower than those given to other European railways.
Back in 1956 there was the modernisation plan for the railways. This made available some £1,200 million, which, I am told, at 1980 prices, would be £7,200 million. Now, after 20 years of the implementation of that scheme, there are signs of grave deterioration in the rolling stock and other equipment of British Rail. Paragraph 4.4 of Rail Policy, to which I have already referred, states:
"The watershed year is 1983. If major expenditure on replacement is not started by then the inevitable consequence will be a rapid rundown of the whole railway system".
A subsequent paragraph—paragraph 4.6—details the serious consequences, which I shall not take up your Lordships' time in outlining.
The corporate plan for 1981 to 1985, which was submitted to the Secretary of State at the end of 1980, made clear in paragraph 3.3 on page 14 that:
"Existing investment levels, if continued, will lead to closure of substantial parts of the existing system during the decade, and inability to meet financial targets in later years".
It must be mentioned that, following the corporate plan proposals, British Rail has started on drastic demanning. In fact, between 1970 and 1979 some 30,000 staff went. The corporate plan proposes that over the next five years 38,300 further jobs will go, and in the period from mid-1980 to March 1981 no fewer than 5,000 of those jobs had already gone. Other productivity plans are being carried through. Borrowing powers, which are purely enabling powers, alone will not meet the problem. What are the Government's plans? Provisions for increased borrowing with little change in the external financing limits will not be the answer. Some 12 months ago we debated in this House the whole question of transport policy and noble Lord after noble Lord referred to the need to re-equip and invest in British Rail, and to the need for a proper plan for electrification. The Government's proposals for electrification are unsatisfactory; they are piecemeal. There must be early agreement on a national scheme. The 10-year programme is all right, but, if this is to be agreed upon piecemeal instead of a general plan on which suppliers and manufacturers can work, then we shall not reach the position that we should, and it will be the private firms which will supply the materials.
I should like to say a few words on the National Bus Company, which is dealt with in Clause 4 of the Bill. We must remember that the National Bus Company was handling some 1,600 million passenger journeys each year. As with other concerns, it has been seriously hit by the recession. The drop in revenue in 1980, attributable to the recession, was £35 million. The full effects in 1981 are not yet available because we have not the report, but the chairman of the company in the 1980 report envisaged that one mile in every nine available in 1980 would not be available for the travelling public in 1981: that is, some 70 million miles of passenger services would be cut. It is pretty clear that economics will
102
determine that the routes to be cut will be mainly those in the rural areas.
I must draw noble Lords' attention to the Transport Bill which was published only last week and which includes provision for the Secretary of State to instruct the National Bus Company to set up subsidiaries with a view to disposal to the private sector. The Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear in a press statement that one of the aims is to hive off the National Bus Company's successful national express coach services.
I understand that in 1980 the national express services contributed £3·1 million to the revenues of the National Bus Company, and an estimate of £5 million for 1981. Taking this away from the National Bus Company will only make the position more difficult. The target has been set that the National Bus Company shall make a profit of £18·5 million by 1985. It would indeed be tragic if that financial target is only to be met by cutting out further services in rural areas and restricting others. This is one of the things that many noble Lords feared at the introduction of the delicensing provisions of the 1980 Act. I would make the point that a public undertaking has a social responsibility, and should not merely obey the market.
The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which looked into the position not only of the National Bus Company but also of British Rail in 1977–78, reported in July 1978 and criticised the capital structure under which the National Bus Company has to work. The 1980 report and accounts of the company sets out that the commencing capital debt of £38 million and its subsequent refinancing at intervals with National Loan Fund loans brought about the position that at the end of 1980 capital debt had risen to £180 million, interest payable had quadrupled, and in 11 years interest of nearly £105 million had been paid on the borrowing.
There have been no capital debts written off since the National Bus Company was set up. As with British Rail, there are the problems of financing set out at pages 18 and 19 of the 1980 report. The external financing limit in 1979–80 was £82 million. This increased in 1980–81 to £85 million, but in 1981–82 was reduced to £75 million. With these figures being at out-turn prices there has obviously been a substantial reduction. As with British Rail, increased borrowing powers will be of little value unless consideration is given to the external financing limit, and merely borrowing and charging up interest to be payable only makes the financial position more difficult.
In conclusion, I refer to Clause 5, which deals with the additional financial assistance to be made available to the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks. The noble Lord kindly wrote to me after we discussed the 1981 Bill, which gave some provision to these same authorities, explaining that there had been consultations after the schemes had been discussed with the National Association of Port Employers and the Transport and General Workers Union. I hope that the Minister can tell me if there have been continued discussions with those bodies about the continuation and the increased development of the severance scheme, as there are large numbers of men who are still leaving

103
under special severance arrangements for these two authorities.
The clause makes provision for financial assistance by grant, loan or guarantee, and the Secretary of State, speaking on the Second Reading in another place on 24th November, said at column 768:
"I have therefore told the chairmen of both port authorities that it is my intention that grants for meeting deficits should not be available after the end of 1982".
Can the noble Lord tell us how much is envisaged as grants for severance costs?
The Secretary of State also stated that he intends to make loans available under the provisions of the Bill, but then he added:
"I must make it clear that there is a risk that these loans might not be repaid if the ports' finances do not improve".
What will be the situation if the loans cannot be repaid and he carries out his statement that no grants will be made after 1982?—because the Secretary of State has added—which is quite true—that both these ports are of national importance.
My last point is that the noble Lord the Minister referred to the corporate plan received from each of the dock authorities, and that the Secretary of State was satisfied with the nature of these two corporate plans and therefore has brought forward the proposals under Clause 5 in the Bill. Can the House be told anything of the proposals by both these docks authorities so that your Lordships may also be satisfied with this provision made in the Bill? r am sorry to have spoken at length on this, but one cannot just deal with borrowing powers unless one deals as far as one can with the general financial position of the public authorities to which this Bill refers.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, I am always interested in listening to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, because he takes a lot of trouble to explain the case and puts it clearly to your Lordships' House. In this particular case there are certain things about which, as an ignoramus, I feel rather confused. I am not very familiar with the various acronyms that are used. When the noble Lord referred to the PLA I did not know whether it was the Palestine Liberation Authority or the Port of Liverpool Authority he was referring to. He may have been referring to both.
There is a point which worries me and confuses me considerably. That is, are we at the present time in this country concerned merely with closing down everything? Are we simply concerned, whether it is a private concern or a public concern, to make it as difficult as possible for it to continue trading? If so, we ought to say quite frankly that we are closing this country down. It seems to me extraordinary that we should take the line that nothing should be done to ensure that what we are doing, and are doing at least reasonably well, should be continued. Rather, we seem to say that unless it is being done with the same profitability as in Japan, or in Korea, or anywhere else in the world, then we ought to close it down.
Surely we ought to realise that there are lots of things we are doing that we are doing fairly well, and that, if there happens to be an international recession, that
104
is surely not an excuse for saying that we must stop doing everything that we are doing today. If we say that, then surely all we are saying is that this country, in the strange phrase that is used all the time, is not viable. I do not really know what is meant by viable, or not viable. But I find it odd, when we look at things which are continuing to function, and to function in a reasonable way, that we say, "Ah, but they are not making a big enough profit, and therefore we must close them down".
I lived through an earlier recession when there were no fewer than 15 million people unemployed in the United States, with half the population it has today. People there were dying, and I lived in America for two years at the time. They went through the whole of that period, and nothing saved them but Roosevelt and the New Deal. Without that, there would be no Reagan masquerading in the United States today. It was because of what Roosevelt did—because he was able to fire the imagination of the country—that the American people realised that out of despair they could create hope and out of hope they could create new activities. Not only did he do it but he did it so well that he was re-elected three successive times as their President.
Are we to go back to that period of utter despair and say we shall close things down? Are we going to restrict things because of a so-called lack of viability, a word which no one defines? Surely, if we do that, we are saying we prefer to cut our throats rather than survive. Is it not time that we in this country began to realise that we are not in a position of despair? We can survive if we are prepared to put the money and resources into doing so. I urge your Lordships to say, "We are concerned with trying to create the future. We are not concerned with any mistakes we made in the past. We are not concerned with destruction or self-destruction. We are concerned with recreating the whole of our modern life". We can do it, but we cannot do it by refusing to invest in it.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should have thought, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that the proposals in the Bill were anything but to do with destruction. On the contrary, the size of some of the figures—on which I might have expected some of your Lordships to comment—is huge indeed and hardly indicates the kind of message to which he referred. However, let me hasten to assure him that it was indeed the PLA and not the PLO to which I was referring; had it been the PLO I should have said different things!
I understand the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Wynne-Jones and Lord Underhill—concern to protect the future of our transport systems and to ensure that the financial structures of our transport institutions reflect the country's needs and priorities—and I am sure we can all agree on the necessity for that. We must remember, however, that more investment and the achievement of higher quality can come only if the resources are earned by improved efficiency within the industry, or if they are given by someone else. There is no way of escaping the reality of that.

105
I know that both British Rail and NBC are well aware of the need for greater efficiency. NBC are being particularly successful at adapting to the effects of recession, and I gladly take this opportunity to congratulate them on their recent performance. The company have made considerable progress in containing costs. I understand that in 1981 they achieved their performance aim of reducing their real operating costs per vehicle mile by no less than 3 per cent., and that is not to do with worsening a service in any way at all; it is to do with doing it better, and for that reason it is good to be able to compliment and congratulate them.
British Rail too have made considerable progress towards meeting their target of reducing manpower requirement by 38,000 posts over the five years from 1980. In 1981 they exceeded their own target by reducing the number of men in post by some 7,500 in that year alone. That surely underlines how important it is that that real gain is not dissipated and frittered away by failure to make progress in improving working practices and in management action to control costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about the board's investment. It is not the case that the Government have reduced the investment ceiling. We want to see the board improving their performance to produce the necessary resources and it is worth pausing to reflect on just how much investment is going on. The hoard expect to spend £325 million on investment in 1981–82—hardly closing down—in addition to the annual expenditure, which is currently totalling nearly £500 million on work such as maintenance of the infrastructure, which falls outside the ceiling. I say again, therefore, that the board are by no means in a position where everything has come to a halt; I should not have thought that was coming to a halt by any means. Within current levels, they have been able to carry out a wide-ranging programme of investment, including for example the introduction of the HST.
I know there is considerable interest and concern in the House about the future of the railways, and I will comment briefly on that, but first let me dispel some myths. It is not the case that we lack faith in the railways. On the contrary, the Secretary of State and his predecessor have made quite clear their belief in the importance of rail to the vitality of the country and their commitment to the extensive network we now have. It is very far from the case that we have starved the railways of funds. The level of grants now being paid is higher in real terms than ever before. The board's current external financing limit is as large in real terms as that set for any year by the previous Administration; again, hardly a record of parsimony. It is not the case that we have restricted the board's investment. The investment ceiling remains, in real terms—I repeat, in real terms—what it was under the previous Administration. It is also not the case that we have blocked the board's plans for electrification. Those plans are expected to be with the Secretary of State shortly.
We are eager to see British Rail succeed, but their problems are, none the less, formidable. As my right honourable friend said in another place and as I welcome the opportunity to reiterate today, a prosperous future for the railways, with more investment, can be secured only if Government, management and
106
unions play their part. Management must tackle the long-term problems of cost control and efficiency; unions must appreciate the need to overcome the problems of overmanning and out-of-date restrictive working practices. That is exactly what lies at the heart of the present dispute, and it is particularly sad to see one union destroying the opportunities for change to which their colleagues in other unions have responded so positively. If management and unions can resolve the impasse and produce a business performance to justify further investment, I assure the House that the Government remain ready to play their part. Surely, whatever it is, that is not a policy of despair; I submit it is quite the opposite.
I think it would also be useful for me to add that, just before the present industrial dispute, British Rail suggested to the Government, and the Government have agreed, that there should shortly be a review of railway finances, under an independent chairman, covering a wide range of important questions, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised today. The review will be concerned with British Rail's objectives, the finances available to serve them, the way in which the railways are run, and the railways' business plans for pursuing its objectives.
I do not today want to say a great deal about the National Bus Company. I have made my general observations about the company. As is known, there is a new Bill to come, and I think that we must await it. However, on the point regarding capital debt, which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned, I think it would be right to say the Government are well aware of the company's views on its capital debt. We have made it clear that we cannot accept that the debt is disproportionate to the company's assets. Nevertheless, we have commissioned a study from Touche, Ross, and Company of the allocation of the company's debt between its subsidiary companies, and my right honourable friend expects to receive the report shortly.
I do not think there is much more that I can add. So far as the ports are concerned, negotiations are going on. I cannot give details of them. At the moment it is impossible to say how much will be available for grants for severance or in the way of loans for capital and so on, but the point is well made and, I gladly assure the noble Lord, is being discussed. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Aviation Security Fund Regulations 1982
3.41 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Aviation Security Fund Regulations 1982, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships on 18th January 1982, be approved. They have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has not drawn the attention of the House to any particular points.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Aviation Security Fund meets the cost of passenger searching and other airport security measures, and

107
that it is financed by a levy on airports. The fund currently has a large surplus, and the main purpose of the regulations is to reduce the levy rate by 40 pence per passenger, from £1·50 to £1·10, for the period of six months from 1st March until 31st August this year.
I should like to touch upon the fund's recent history. Two years ago it was in substantial deficit, and in February 1980 the levy was raised sharply to £1·60 in order to return the fund to balance within a year. That objective was achieved, indeed more than achieved, because a year ago the fund had returned to a positive balance of somewhat over £3 million. Estimates prepared last spring indicated that if the levy were left unchanged at £1·60, the surplus would grow rapidly. The levy was therefore reduced to £1·50 from 1st August last year, and the Government then undertook to consider a further change in the levy rate early in 1982 in the light of fresh estimates. I was the Minister responsible at that time, and I took that decision. Fresh estimates have now shown that if the levy rate were to remain at £1·50, the surplus would reach £7 million by the end of this financial year and would probably persist at this level throughout 1982–83. It is not the intention that the fund should retain such a substantial balance, and the Government have therefore decided to reduce the levy by 40 pence during the coming months in order to run the surplus down to less than £1 million.
The greatly improved financial position of the fund reflects both the efforts of the Government in bringing inflation under control and the efforts of those concerned with security in the Department of Trade and in the civil aviation industry to find more efficient and economical means of carrying out necessary security tasks. I would mention in particular the new centralised searching arrangements at Heathrow Terminal 3, and at Gatwick, but less dramatic improvements have also been made elsewhere.
If any of your Lordships are interested in further information about the fund's finances, may I refer you to the background paper which has been placed in the Library. It describes factors which have affected the fund's recent results and sets out the latest estimates of income and expenditure up to the end of March 1983.
Finally, I would mention that the draft regulations consolidate previous regulations, and apart from reducing the levy rate for six months, they make a number of other changes to them. These comprise several small adjustments to the classes of passengers exempt from levy contributions, an increase in the rate of interest payable on overdue levy contributions, and other very minor changes. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for introducing the regulations and for reminding your Lordships of the purpose of the fund and its history. The noble Lord pointed, quite rightly, to the reduction in the costs of administering the funds, and obviously your Lordships will be pleased that these economies have been achieved.
108
However, that should give one no reason for complacency. It must be a matter of continuing concern to see that security is handled effectively and that we avoid a situation which does not make the most effective use of the manpower involved. The noble Lord mentioned, again quite rightly, the benefits of centralised searching at Heathrow, but, as I have said, this should not give one a sense of complacency.
It is good to know that there will be some element of stability in the amount of the levy. From August 1982 onwards the amount of the levy will go back to £1·50, and I hope that if there is to be any further change for the 1983 holiday season, notification will be given at the earliest possible opportunity. Last week I attended a conference about tourism, summoned by the Prime Minister of Israel, and British travel agents there made very great play of the fact that their brochures go to the printers earlier each succeeding year, and usually in about July they need to know what their costs are to be for the following season. So I would hope that it will be possible to give at least an indication about nine months in advance of any proposals for change in the forthcoming season. Having said that, I would add that we do not at all dispute the regulations.
Earl Amherst: My Lords, we wish to thank the noble Lord for explaining so clearly the matters under consideration. We are also very glad to hear of something going down, not up, even though it is on only a temporary basis. As I think your Lordships already know, the levy is based on the number of incoming passengers. As your Lordships also know, incoming passengers are not concerned with security. As we all know, it is the outgoing passengers who, together with their hand luggage, are searched. I am told that this method is adopted because it suits the administrative convenience of the British Airports Authority. I am also told that to date the total of incoming passengers and the total of outgoing passengers more or less tally. Therefore, so far as the passenger is concerned—and in the last analysis it is the passenger who pays—it does not seem very much to matter which method is adopted. However, I should like to ask the Minister whether, if in the course of time, the figures vary and there is a considerable, or an appreciable, difference between the number of outgoing passengers and the number of incoming passengers, the matter will he reassessed and possibly the method changed.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is so rare for an impost of any kind actually to be reduced, even in the short term, that I am sure my noble friend deserves congratulations upon it, even though he is offering the reduction for only six months. However, I hope that in accepting the congratulations my noble friend will not delude himself into thinking they mean that some of us who have always disliked the principle of the levy have been wholly appeased. If my mathematics are right, we are perhaps appeased by only 30 per cent.
I do not want to detain the House on this occasion but it seems quite wrong that the duty of securing the

109
safety of the citizen travelling to and from this country, which it seems to me is basic to the state, should be charged for as a special and additional charge. The country came together under a settled Government because the Government were prepared to give security to their citizens. It is a fundamental duty of Government; and this small charge on a very hard-pressed travel and civil aviation industry seems not only to be quite wrong in principle but also to he a very unfortunate precedent.
So I welcome very much this reduction. I hope my noble friend will say that if, when we come to August, it appears that the fund is still in the solvent condition in which he suggests it is now he will look again at this figure of £1·50 and seek to bring it down. As your Lordships know, particularly as a result of the events of the last weekend, the industry is in a very hard-pressed state and any burden, however relatively and proportionately small, is one that it feels. Any alleviation that my noble friend can give would be of help, and perhaps he can hold out some hope on that.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long, but there are just three points that I should like to raise before we move on to discussing the actual draft regulations before us today. I sat down when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rose to speak at the same time as I did because I am never quite sure of the order of speaking in this House, but I want to follow on what he has said because he and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, were kind enough to support me some four years ago when we raised the first point that I want to raise today.
I want to protest once more against the principle involved whereby passengers have to pay these security charges. I think it is quite wrong. We do not tax workers at airports, and many air travellers are workers who are going about their business every bit as much as anyone else. We do not tax visitors at airports; and I think it is quite abnormal for persons living in or passing through problem points to be subject to a special tax. Presumably one can only say that it is the policy of this Government and of their predecessors to tax sections of the community which may be at risk—and that seems a very dangerous policy.
Surely it is quite unanswerable that neither the passengers nor the airlines are responsible for creating the security risks at airports, and that they are merely the victims of terrorist attacks. The aim of hijackers and terrorists, I submit, is to bring pressure on Governments. Passengers do not create the need for this service. The threat is directed against the community at large and against Governments in general. I believe it is the function of Government to provide such protection; it is not something that should be bought by individuals.
In March 1978 the noble Lord, Lord Oram, who was replying for the then Government, admitted that none of our partners in the European Economic Community had introduced an aviation security levy along these lines. Replying to what I said in the House on 18th January last the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was good enough to write and to say:
110
" You correctly reminded the House that no other country in the EEC had a similar system when the United Kingdom security levy was introduced in 1978. This is a fair point, and it is true that no EEC country has yet copied the United Kingdom's system".
So they cannot have thought so much of it in the four years since 1978. I must add that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, went on to say that we were not unique in applying our system, but, of course, I was discussing the EEC.
The Minister in another place, on 3rd February, said:
"The levy finances the aviation security fund, which pays for the cost of passenger searching and other anti-terrorist measures at United Kingdom airports".
I suggest to the House that proper security and safety are the direct concern of the Government.
Now I want to move on to another point, and it is one that the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has raised. It is why this charge is to be levied on incoming passengers. Going back to 1978 I remarked that it seemed to me quite extraordinary to levy this charge at the point of arrival: surely any cost for search and security arises at the point of departure. The other day the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, and I had a conversation in the Library. He said he was going to raise this, and I said, "Yes, we raised it four years ago". He said, "What answer did we get?", and I said, "To the best of my knowledge it was because it was administratively convenient, but 1 will have a look at my files and see what it was". I checked on my files, and at column 998 on 9th March 1978 we were told that this arrangement was because it was administratively convenient.
My noble friend Lord Oram, being helpful as ever, went on to tell us that Clause 2(2)(a) contained a provision which would make it possible for the Secretary of State to levy the contribution by reference to departing passengers if that should ever prove to be more convenient. I do not know whether it is more convenient but it is certainly more sensible, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, could tell us if that clause is still in being and if it is at all likely that it may be more convenient.
So the first point I raise is one of principle; the second is one, obviously, of administration seeming more important than common sense; and my third one
concerns finance. Could the Minister tell the Rouse whether or not it is correct that airlines are including £2 in the price of their fares to cover administration? This seems quite excessive. If I have been misinformed could we be told the actual charge added, and also what the figure will be during the six months when the levy is reduced to £1·10? It surely cannot be £2 on that. The total cost of these security measures is estimated at about £42 million for next year, and obviously security is expensive. I believe that some £6 million will be saved by the proposed reduction for six months. Could the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, tell us whether this will be passed on to the travelling public, in what manner and by how much?
Whatever the reasons, the House is being asked to approve a reduction in levy because previous overcharging has resulted in a substantial surplus to the fund. As I have just said, we are discussing some £42 million-worth of public spending; and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, whether he himself accepts that these estimates before us today are based

111
on what he firmly believes to be the proper allowance for increasing costs.
In conclusion, to return to the beginning, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will remember that when this issue of principle was before the House in 1978 those of us who believed that security was the responsibility of Government lost by only two votes. I remember an ex-Minister, being rushed to the defence, making the emotive but quite irrelevant point that surely passengers would not object to paying for proper security. Obviously, we would all rather pay than risk being hijacked or bombed. That is common sense; but it was not the point I was raising. I should like to think that many of us still believe that the maintenance of general security is not for the individual citizen.
I recall the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, saying at the time that protection of the subject against the Queen's enemies was the reason for which society and the state came into existence. He went on to say that it was because the Crown promised protection that the Crown received allegiance. I mention that point, possibly unnecessarily, so that we might avoid any repetition of any irrelevancies. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for supplying those of us interested with details of the draft regulations as soon as he possibly could. Obviously, I am glad that the charges are being reduced, but I look forward to hearing the answers to the questions that I have ventured to raise.
4 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am obliged to your Lordships for the response to this order. The principle of the matter which we are discussing was, as the noble Baroness pointed out, discussed at very considerable length and this legislation recently went through Parliament at the hands—in this House, at least—of the noble Lord, Lord Oram; and I am happy to see him in his place this afternoon.
The aviation industry is not alone in having to bear the costs of its own security. The costs of the British Transport police, for example, arc met out of the transport undertakings' general revenue. The British Transport police responsibilities include the London Underground system, which is one obvious example of an area susceptible of attack by those seeking to apply pressure to Governments. Sports stadia bear their own policing costs, which means that football supporters contribute to the cost of hirine police to protect them from the hooligans among them. Those who benefit from the service provided; namely, those who travel by air—half of whom incidentally are not British citizens or taxpayers—I suggest should pay for the identifiable cost of their own protection. In addition, the constraints on public expenditure are no less now than they were when the fund was set up; and there is no realistic possibility of the cost of aviation security being returned to the taxpayer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, posed the question of the levy being raised on incoming passengers. Because the number of incoming passengers is the same as the number of departing passengers and it is still administratively convenient for the majority of airports, however, the power to raise the levy on departing passengers
112
still exists. The Government will be willing to raise the levy on departing passengers should it be found subsequently, in the view of the industry, in particular, that it was more convenient for the majority of the airports. Your Lordships would agree, I think, that it would be very inappropriate to have levy raised on departing passengers at some airports and on arriving passengers at others. But if there is a general wish for this matter to be looked at again, the Government would be willing to do so. For the moment, since the number of arriving passengers and departing passengers is almost precisely identical, the Government see no pressing need to depart from the existing arrangement.
Those were the principal points which were raised by noble Lords this afternoon. I am aware that one or more noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, have reservations about the principle of these arrangements, but they are now quite long established and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not pursue the arguments further in that particular regard.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, could the noble Lord comment on the charges made by the airlines to cover the administration of the security charge? I gave him the figure of £2 per passenger. Is that correct?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise for not taking up that point. The charge is covered by the airlines differently according to the nature of the flight concerned. On charter flights, I understand that the normal practice is to put the charge directly on to the invoice as an identifiable extra; but in terms of scheduled service tickets, the charge is not separately identified in the fare which the passenger pays.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am not being awkward but I am not asking for anything to be written on the ticket; I am asking, what is the additional charge that the airlines put on the ticket, if you like for their own convenience, before selling them to the customer?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will contain herself, I am just coming to that point. The charge, as far as charter tickets is concerned, is separately charged to the customer on the invoice and, I presume, relates precisely to the charge as it is imposed on the airline. I have not heard that the charges are something higher than the figure provided for in the regulations. As far as the scheduled services are concerned, I imagine that in the short term the reduction will benefit the airlines because I do not expect air fares to be suddenly reduced by 40 pence from the 1st March.
In the longer term, 1 have no doubt that the reduction in airline operating costs which the lower levy rate will bring will be reflected in the price of tickets. As far as inclusive tours are concerned. as I have said, the customer's final invoice often includes separate charges for airport tax and other related items. In such cases, the customer's bill, I expect, will be 40 pence lower than it otherwise would have been. Again, I am grateful for the reception your noble Lords have given to this order.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister not intend to answer the question I have asked of whether the airlines put a charge, reckoned at around £2, on the cost of the tickets that they sell to their customers?—yes or no?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect, that is a question which ought to be addressed to the airlines and not to me.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he be kind enough to answer the question of mine which he apparently overlooked, as to whether, when we come up to August and when, under this order, the charge will revert to £1·50 and if the fund looks to be reasonably prosperous, he will look again at that figure and see whether it cannot be reduced?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that question—and it is very much in line with what Lord Boyd-Carpenter was saying—I asked whether adequate notice could be given of any revision in the charges.
Lord Trefgarne: Certainly, my Lords, It is not the Government's intention that this fund should generate the substantial surplus that it has done in recent years and months. If that situation looked like arising again later in the year we would want to look again at the charge. As for the date on which any changes will be announced, so that the travel organisations, for example, can have prior notice, I take note of the importance of the point which the noble Lord raises. There are difficulties in setting it too far ahead because costs increase and it is not always possible to know precisely how those costs will increase, how numbers of passengers will fluctuate and other related matters. I take note of the point that any increase ought to he announced as far in advance as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill which is before your Lordships for its second reading today represents a fundamental effort to change a bad law, an unenforced and unenforceable law, and points the way for freedom for shops to open and close when they wish. It is always a pleasure to listen to a maiden speech, and I am particularly honoured that my noble friend Lord Mackintosh should have chosen my Bill as a starting point to what I know will be a distinguished career in this House. Perhaps I should declare some sort of interest, because it must be a unique occasion when both the maiden speaker and my noble friend the Minister happen to have been pupils of my husband—who is, no doubt, listening to all three of us in a highly critical way.
The fact that my Bill is the latest in a long series of attempts to rationalise these matters daunts me not at all. In fact, the history of attempted legislation in both Houses encourages me. It proves the gathering strength of feeling which exists among consumers and
114
shopkeepers to alter the extraordinary situation which exists at present.
I have no wish to bore your Lordships with the well-known examples of anomalies which exist under the law as it stands today. I should, however, like to make one exception on behalf of the National Federation of Fish Fryers. It seems scarcely credible that it is legal to buy delicious prawn balls and chips from Chinese "take-aways" but it is illegal to buy delicious fish and chips from a fish and chip shop, although fish and chip shops may legally sell other products. My Lords, what a ludicrous situation! Of course, the answer to that particular piece of lunacy is that fish and chip shops were the only kind of take-away establishments which existed in Britain when the Act was passed, so Chinese, Indian and other types of take-away escaped the net.
Let me turn to the reverse side of the coin. Presumably because it was believed that the Scots would not open their shops on a Sunday, Scotland was not included in the 1950 Shops Act. What has been the result? In Scotland some types of shops open on a fairly regular basis, others do not. Those which do open tend to be a certain type of operation—for example, large discount warehouses—or they are in a particular kind of location. The Co-op hypermarket in Glasgow opens legally and regularly. Its counter-parts in England cannot. Large-scale openings of shops on the three Sundays preceding Christmas also take place and are now well established events in the major towns and cities in Scotland.
There is an important trend towards diversification within stores in Scotland. As Sunday shopping has become popular, specialist shops such as garden centres have diversified, thereby encouraging the whole family to enjoy several hours of shopping on a Sunday. The National Consumer Council report comments that diversification of this nature is a recognition that many families like to shop together on a Sunday, the day which in this kind of shop is now their heaviest trading day. The phenomenon of the tourist departmental "stores is another aspect of diversification. As well as providing the usual range of tourist goods, the stores provide a wide range of clothing, books and related goods, a drinks section (which is closed on Sunday), food, plants and pot plants, et cetera. The majority of shops in the multiple chains (typical of high street shopping areas) are shut, although there are some exceptions.
Sunday shopping is widespread in areas on the edge of towns normally located on a large industrial site, close to major road connections. Some village shops in southern Scotland shut on Saturday afternoons but open on Sunday mornings. Most village shops selling confectionery, tobacco and newspapers open for the morning only but extend their opening hours should the occasion demand it. Small, usually family-owned, village groceries often open on Sunday mornings. Sunday shopping has also become a fixture of pre-Christmas trading, especially in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee and the smaller surrounding towns. In 1981 most of the major multiples such as British Home Stores, Woolworths, Menzies, the Co-op, Boots, Debenhams, W. H. Smith, Miss Selfridge and the House of Fraser took advantage in this way of their Scottish liberty.

115
A significant part of the National Consumer Council's document on trading in Scotland is taken up with reports made from interviews with members from the retail trade: Frasers, for instance, who opened for the three Sundays prior to Christmas, did not open on other Sundays as it had proved to be not commercially valid. They reported no difficulty in finding volunteer staff. In 1981, W. H. Smith opened their Princes Street, Edinburgh, store on one Sunday after Easter. It was not a commercial success. They opened again to benefit from the tourist trade from mid-June to the beginning of September, this time with good results. This again demonstrates the flexibility of the situation and the fact that commercial common sense prevails. Habitat Designs Limited, who are open at their three stores in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, close on Mondays. They do not advocate seven-day trading but merely, as I do, that shops should be allowed to select their own opening hours.
Habitat's trading policy in Scotland demonstrates the demand for this shopping facility by the fact that 25 per cent. of their sales are taken on a Sunday within the shorter opening period of 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Staffing at Habitats on a Sunday presents no problems as a high proportion of weekend employees are part-timers who work eight hours on Saturday and 4½ hours on Sundays, for two days' salary. Full-time staff are on a flexible roster which, in effect, means that they work nine days out of 14 and are paid for working the full two weeks (10 days). Mr. Kerr, of the Glasgow Chamber of Trade and also representing the Association of Retail Distributors, points out that employees seem extremely happy with the way the Shops Act operates in Scotland without affecting prices, and the only long term change he envisages is that more shops might be tempted to close on Monday and Tuesday and open on Sunday.
Another important point—The Wages Council agreement is quite generous to the worker. If members of staff work 4 hours or more, they are paid for 16 hours. On average, shops are open for fewer hours on Sundays, so staff tend to be working between five and six hours, and they are automatically paid for 16 hours. If they work for less than 4½ hours—say four hours—then they are paid for eight hours. Before opening on Sunday, both the Co-op and House of Fraser invited the shop workers union, USDAW, to carry out a poll among staff. There was no compulsion about Sunday working. In both organisations the shop workers voted overwhelmingly in favour of Sunday opening.
It seems that the present Sunday trading position in Scotland is stable and causes no problems. Churchgoers go to church and then shop if they wish. Mothers prepare the Sunday lunch and can then shop with their husbands and children if they wish. Retailers seem quite content to let the demand for shops to be open find an appropriate level, and to let shops open as need be to meet that demand. There is no reason to suppose that the pattern of Sunday opening would be different in England and Wales if the law were altered in the manner proposed by this Bill.
I have dealt in depth with the Scottish experience because it bears out my belief, and the belief of those who support me, that allowing shops to open does not
116
mean that shops—or at least all shops—do open. The fact that nearly all shops in the United Kingdom do not open between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on weekdays, although they arc allowed to do so, is another case in point.
My Lords, let me now turn to another aspect; namely, surveys of attitudes. In 1974, Which? published a report which dealt only with late night shopping. In 1975 there was a Home Office survey, which is now out of date, but it is my understanding that the Home Office has been making a new survey, and that my noble friend Lord Belstead will be announcing its conclusions during today's debate. I greatly look forward to listening to what he will tell us.
In 1979 the National Consumer Council carried out a survey, Sunday Trading—the Consumers' View. In January 1982, a report for the National Consumer Council drew attention to the number of respondents' complaints concerned either with shops being shut when respondents left work or with the need for Sunday opening. These reports, interesting though they were, were difficult to assess usefully for my purpose today. However, a new poll, with a base of 2,005, carried out by MORI has produced strikingly new figures in favour both of extension of shop hours and of Sunday trading. Nearly two-thirds of the public favour a change in the law to allow more shops to remain open during the evening. The question put was:" Do you think the law should be changed to allow more shops to remain open during the evening or not? "The replies were: Should be allowed to remain open—64 per cent. Should not be
allowed to remain open—32 per cent. Don't know—4 per cent.
The public appears equally in favour of a change in the Sunday trading laws. Nearly two-thirds of those interviewed supported such a move. The question was: "At present, only shops selling newspapers and certain types of food are allowed to open on Sundays. Do you think the law should be changed to allow other groups to open on Sundays or not? "The replies came as follows: Should be allowed to open—63 per cent. Should not be allowed to open—33 per cent. Don't know—4 per cent. Interviewing for the poll took place between 27th November and 1st December 1981, with a total of 160 sampling points. Interestingly, support for changes in the law is more strongly advocated in southern regions and, although support for the relaxation of the law concerning evening opening hours also increases with social class, in the case of Sunday opening there is no longer any simple correlation of demands to any particular social class.
The social conditions which led up to the 1950 Act have, in the past years, changed drastically. Shops are in business for their own good and a trader should be allowed to adapt his hours to circumstances and the local needs. While watching the television programme "Two Nations" on 31st January, I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State for Employment enthusiastically endorse a slogan which he had seen in a New York shop. He quoted: "We love our customers. They pay the wages". My Lords, I could not agree more.
These past two months, which have included Christmas and the January sales, have seen desperately

117
severe weather conditions throughout Britain. I have no doubt that in Wales, for instance, turnover in shops compared with 1980 must be down. If those shops were free to try to make up their losses by adjusting their opening hours, we might see fewer traders faced with bankruptcy in the coming months. Unemployment, which is the biggest national worry in this country today, could be helped if shops could employ more part-timers to work during more flexible shopping hours. Tourists would spend more, if they could shop on Sundays. The list of advantages to be gained is endless.
I am in no way advocating a compulsory seven-day week shop opening, or a compulsory seven-day week for shop workers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, asked during the short debate on the Shops Act last summer: "How do people get gas and electricity on a Sunday, without people working?" How indeed, my Lords! And I would add: How do we get our Monday newspapers or our Sunday broadcasts and television? People are working on Sundays. They work a five-day week, which may include Sundays. Factories may open when they please; airports, railways—sometimes—and buses operate on Sundays. Why not shops which, after all, are paying rents and rates on a seven-day basis?
We live in a pluralistic society. The Sabbath for a Christian is not the same day as that for the 1½ million Moslems who live in this country or for members of the Jewish faith. Nobody is surely suggesting that the Christians should spend the whole of Sunday in church. Why should a family not go as a family to buy those items, such as furniture, which involve a family decision? Such an outing is surely better for family life—not worse. I can see no reason for believing that the opening of a few shops or garden centres will result in the death of the family, as such, and a lot of people will not change their pattern of life, anyway. Quite apart from those who go to church or do not go to church, people who go to watch or play Sunday football or cricket will go. Those who watch TV, walk the dog or laze by the fire will go on doing just that. People who are good parents will not change and neither, alas! will the bad parents. And people will go shopping. If so, why not? I ask your Lordships to look at life in free Scotland; I ask you to heed the voice of the majority, and I ask you to look with favour at my Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on the splendid way in which she has introduced this Bill. She was very clear, very succinct and very brief, which is always a plus in this House. If I may say so, it is the females who speak briefly and they probably put more points than the males.
I should like to make my own position clear. I was very intrigued to find that my Front Bench had elevated me to being the second speaker on this Bill, which I have always understood in my years in the House meant that one was virtually speaking on behalf of the Opposition. But I hasten to say that my noble friend Lord Jacques has already told one group that he will
118
be speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition, so I suppose that on this occasion I am speaking for myself.
Lord Jacques: No, I have not told anybody.
Baroness Phillips: It is in the minutes of the all-party retail group. However, I shall not pursue that point. I would merely say that on this occasion I might be speaking as an independent. The noble Baroness has pointed out that this piece of legislation has been under discussion over a long period. I counted nine Bills that have gone through, each trying to deal piecemeal with this situation. I think your Lordships will agree that if an Act of Parliament is constantly under discussion, it must mean that there is some need for either reform or change.
The noble Baroness who introduced the Bill has had the courage to go the whole hog, if I may so put it. I have tried on two occasions to bring in amending legislation to deal with sections of the Act, so I compliment her on her honesty and courage. She has made the point which I made in the earlier debate and which I would repeat: who already works on Sunday? We should be very hypocritical if we suggested that the whole of society closed down on Friday evening at five o'clock. Of course, if one is unfortunate enough to he ill on a Saturday, one realises what great inconvenience is caused to the medical profession who all appear to have gone away for the weekend, leaving one at the mercy of emergency services which may or may not materialise.
But there are a whole host of workers who maintain our lifestyle during the weekend. We have heard of some—those who supply our energy, our gas and electricity, and our transport. There is the fact that we can put on our television sets or listen to our radios; the fact that if we need to go to hospital there are ambulance services waiting for us; the fact that if we have a fire there are firemen waiting to put out the blaze and so on. And, surely, the churches work on Sunday. Perhaps one of the reasons why they do not like this Bill is that they will be in competition for the customers. But there is no doubt that there are already many people who have to work, and we cannot run a sophisticated society, such as the one in which we live, from Monday to Friday—9 to 5. There is a great argument going on now concerning the marvellous word "roster"—in other words, flexible hours, or people having to work unsocial hours. We have probably made a great deal too much of this. I have found that workers are quite willing to work unsocial hours. Indeed, many do, provided that they have the proper recompense for doing so. This would have to be looked at if we were to change the situation in shops.
I am subjected to pressure from a number of groups with which I have the privilege to be connected. It might be a warning to your Lordships not to take on too many chairmanships because at some point in time the different groups you represent will all have different points of view and you will not be sure which one you are supposed to be following. I can only say that I have looked very carefully at them all. I have tried to consider the view of the traders, whom I have the privilege to represent. I have also tried to

119
consider the view of the Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Acts Administration who have to administer the Act. I have tried to consider, too, the view of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers who are great supporters of a particular trust, of which I have the privilege to be chairman. As I said once before to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Fallowfield, I sincerely hope that if I oppose them they will not close the conference house which they have so generously supported. It is sufficient to the day to say that there are many points of view, all of which conflict with how one decides to deal with a Bill of this kind.
I would only say that the current law is in disrepute. It is possible, certainly in London, to buy anything that you want to buy on a Sunday, whether it is a large or a small article. It is possible to go to Sunday markets. It is possible to walk along Piccadilly and see that what was originally an artist's display is now offering everything for sale. It is possible to buy from street traders, and so on. So we can safely say that the law is in disrepute. This seems, therefore, to be the moment to look at the law to see whether or not it is serving the needs of the population.
The Institute of Shops inspectorate has the unenviable task of enforcing this law. They will bluntly tell you that it is virtually impossible to enforce it. That is another reason why we should look at the law. As the noble Baroness has said, we now have a different social pattern of living. Women work now. Many of the consumers who have said that they would like Sunday trading are the very people who are shop assistants. So they must have thought about it from their own point of view. And people come to this country who do not understand our laws. Once I tried to institute a debate upon a change of the licensing laws because tourists do not understand why everything closes down at two o'clock on a Sunday afternoon. Indeed, some of us do not understand it, but we have grown up with it. I found there, just as you find here, that the moment you try to change a particular pattern of behaviour certain people immediately appear on the scene. Those countries on the Continent which are mainly Roman Catholic do not, in my book, appear to be less godly because their shops are open on Sundays. The people still flock to mass in church before they open their shops. And the consumers want it.
I get the feeling in our modern society that the last to be considered are the passengers, the patients, the customers or anybody who pays for the privilege. The staff are considered, yes. The administrators are considered, yes. Even the laws are considered. But the person who is actually going to foot the bill comes very low in our consideration of priorities. We have seen very clearly that customers actually want this. The Retail Consortium carried out surveys through their membership and dealt with it rather neatly by saying that a clear picture emerged that there should be no immediate amendment of legislation but that it should be considered. This seems to have been the cry of politicians from the year dot: that we will have a look at it; that we will have a Royal Commission (that would take three years); that we will have a select committee. But this issue has been on the stocks for so
120
long that it seems to me one has to recognise that the law needs amending.
The all-party retail group agreed that they would look with interest at the Government's reaction to this Bill. Might I suggest that the Government should look with equal interest at the reaction to this Bill? One learns very early both in this House and in the other place that, no matter how good your Bill may be, if you present it as a private Member and the Government do not want it it will not go any further than discussion of the type we are having today. Therefore. we shall look with great interest at what the Government have to say.
We have tried several times to change certain aspects of the law. We have looked at the number of days shops can open in certain resorts. There was a curious definition of what was a holiday resort. It had to be by the sea, which cut out the Lake District and some of the other towns which now are certainly holiday resorts. We attempted to increase the number of days and to change the law on early closing. As noble Lords will know, in some towns there is not even six day opening because certain powers-that-be have made it necessary for shops to operate on the basis of opening for five and a half days each week.
Then we tried to amend the law regarding what can be sold on Sundays. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, gave some examples and I shall not weary your Lordships with others. All I would say is that the Bill which is going through another place regarding garden centres highlights the nonsense that you can buy a plant on Sundays but that you cannot buy the spade which will enable you to put the plant in the earth. I am sure that that has some logic, but it defeats me at the moment. One needs my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry to apply her great logic to this matter. She would probably provide the answer. I notice that my noble friend Lord Jacques may suggest that shops should be able to open until one o'clock on Sundays and possibly until eight o'clock on weekdays. I think the noble Baroness might consider that she has almost got her point. But the very clear language in which she has couched this Bill—that shops should open when they think fit—seems in this day and age to be right. This Government believe in the entrepreneur, in freedom of choice and in freedom of operation. Surely, therefore, this Government are going to give a fair passage to the Bill.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches are also glad to see that this matter has been brought before your Lordships' House today. As the two other speakers have already said, it is long overdue that we should review the Shops Act 1950. In particular, the whole pattern of living of women has changed. A very large number of married women now go out to work. ft is extremely inconvenient and hard on them that shops should close as they stop work. Therefore, shopping has to be done at the most inconvenient times—at times when they would like to be at home catching up on the work that they would be doing at home if they were not out at work. The ability to do your shopping on the way home from work because the shops stay open would undoubtedly be of very considerable

121
assistance to the great majority of women. For this reason, if for no other, I very much hope that the Government will look favourably upon the proposals put forward in the noble Baroness's Bill.
It is also undoubtedly true that it is time that the extraordinary exceptions and permissions included in Schedule 5 were got rid of, except that it is rather a pity to let such a remarkable document disappear from the Statute Book. It really is a delight to read but a puzzle to understand why you should be forbidden to buy cream in a tin, unless it is clotted (unless this is the strength of the Cornish lobby) although you are allowed to buy fodder for mules, which does not seem to be one of the most urgent matters to deal with. The real gem which I would hate to see permanently lost is that you are allowed to buy cooked or partly cooked tripe. One is tempted to say half-baked tripe. Such a schedule and such regulations, surely underline how absurd it is to go on as we are at the present time.
On the other hand, I am not certain that the Bill as it stands is just quite what we want. I have made it clear that we want change and we want change along these lines. But the Bill states that it should come into force one month after it is passed, and that assumes that there are no questions to be dealt with as a consequence of removing existing regulations. Of that I am not entirely convinced. It is true that the Bill leaves in the protection for shop workers, and that protection needs to be maintained; it may even need to be extended if the proposal for completely free opening left to the decision of the shops goes through.
I recognise that, in the great majority of cases, especially in large towns and in the larger shops, a decision to open will be taken only after the employer has found out from the employees that they are willing to work on the new hours. But there are a very large number of small shops in which inspection of working conditions is very difficult indeed to undertake. In these days of unemployment and the desire of a great many women to get work if they possibly can—after all, the unemployment rates for women have been rising even faster than those for men—I can envisage that there could be a number of cases in smaller shops with inadequately organised labour forces in which this unlimited permission to work hours chosen by the employer might lead to a considerable amount of abuse. There can, I am sure, be ways of overcoming this, but they need to be examined and the position needs to be safeguarded, and I doubt if that can be done in so short a period as one month after the passing of the Act.
Although, like the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I fully recognise that shop opening on the continent of Europe has long been the practice and has in many ways enhanced life in European countries, I am not absolutely convinced that we want to move to a fully commercial Sunday. I am not convinced that the population as a whole wants to do that. Yes, we need the ability to have more shops open on Sunday. Yes, it is hypocritical that a great many do in fact open today and a great deal of trading goes on. But is there any limit that we want to put on it? I am not convinced that I know the answer, and I am not convinced that we would have the answer and we would know what people really do want about the kind of Sunday they wish to
122
see if this Bill is brought into force one month after its passage through Parliament.
So I ask the Government to take the purpose of this Bill very seriously, to accept that a great many people want to see changes, that the existing legislation is ridiculous, that it is all too easy to make jokes at its expense, but that there are serious questions involved, particularly in relation to the safeguarding of employees' interests and as to the kind and quality of Sunday we have in this country in the future.
4.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, your Lordships must be swayed and stunned by the seductive reasoning of the three siren voices we have just heard, and who am I to seek to follow that united word from three of the most persuasive noble ladies in the House? But we bishops have to live dangerously, and I would like to bring a few thoughts before your Lordships on this very important matter. I am sure that none of us has a desire narrowly to restrict everything that happens on Sunday, but the work and time spent in your Lordships' House in past years, and in another place, to put together the balance of prohibition and permission of the Shops Act 1950 I think should not be quite so easily swept aside by the very draconian suggestions of the noble Baroness.
Of course, I am at a disadvantage; temperamentally I feel drawn to follow her because her very title is precious to me. Years ago as a simple Cambridge undergraduate I was always taught to ride along the Trumpington Road on my bicycle. I thought we would probably have a quotation about the opportunity of buying food at Grantchester. I saw one of the noble Lords rising and saying:
" And stands the clock at ten to three
And is there Trumpington for tea"?
So far no one has said that and it may in fact be irrelevant, so I will withdraw from following through that particular line. In fact, we have been swept along the Trumpington Road to Saturday night in Glasgow, or rather Sunday morning in Glasgow, of all places. I had never realised the things that took place in Glasgow on a Sunday before, but I am just an English bishop and so I keep my rather low profile in Scotland. I am in a rather weaker position here; owing to flexible rostering and the fact that I have an engagement in my diocese early tomorrow morning, and having had to come down by motor-car, I have to keep wide awake to drive it back again; so I have to leave at 7 o'clock. I make public apology to the noble Baroness, who has given us a marvellous speech, full of detail showing an immense amount of careful research; I apologise for not being able, as is our custom, to stay till the end, although, being a man of faith, I have no doubt about the end, and I look forward to hearing late tonight on the wireless that it went the right way, whatever that way may be.
I think I would like to try and put a balancing note or two to that remarkably fine speech of the noble Baroness. As your Lordships would expect, speaking from these Benches, it would be proper, I think, to say something about the religious aspect of the Shops Act and of this particular Private Member's Bill sweepingly amending that Act—what might be considered to be the religious view. By this I now carefully say the

123
English religious view, because I am sure there must be some noble Lords who will bring a picture of Scotland slightly different from the one which we have heard already. That we shall wait to see.
Your Lordships will remember that when the Crathorne Committee's Report was before us many years ago we also in the then Church Assembly of the Church of England, now called the General Synod, spent a good deal of time seeking to tease out the problems and the principles behind the issue of Sunday shops. I make no apology for speaking on this particular aspect of the Bill, because, as I see it, the noble Baroness wishes to sweep aside the whole of Section 4 of this Act, which has five parts, and Section 4 is taken up with Sunday trading. The Church Assembly gave this statement, which still, so far as I know, reflects the general view of the Church of this land:
" The Church Assembly is desirous of maintaining Sunday as a day of worship and recreation, and as far as possible Sunday should remain the normal day of rest ".
It is not for me to say what the scurryings on the three Sundays before Christmas in Glasgow were likely to produce, but I would doubt whether they helped towards a day of rest. But I shall say no more about Scotland because I was once stopped in Scotland by a Scottish policeman and so I always keep quiet about Scotland.
However, I think it is true to say that the general religious view about Sunday shops has not changed all that much. But what has changed of course in our more multi-racial society in the past 22 years since our last look at this matter under the Shops Act 1950 has been that we now have quite a number of shops owned by Jewish firms or with Jewish owners and an increasing number of Moslem ones. Admittedly it may be necessary to bring in some form of amended legislation to help regulate the Moslem situation, but we must be very careful about positive discrimination here because, as in East Africa where the Indian shopkeepers were a vital part of the economy of Uganda, so in parts of our country the shops owned by Moslems are a vital part of our economy. Certainly Section 4 of the Act helped to care for and protect the Jewish element of the shopkeeping world as well as the Christian. I think that the detail of Section 4 is something that we would lose at our peril. Therefore, on the religious side—and other noble Lords may speak more fully on this matter—I think that we should be very hesitant to follow the noble Baroness in her sweeping Bill.
I am interested to note that very little so far—although no doubt a great deal will be said in later speeches—has been said about the people who actually have the task of being our shopkeepers and serving the nation. I am interested in the document that USDAW has sent to some people, and I personally was very glad to receive it. The paragraph which deals with religious convictions says:
"Religious convictions, sincerely held by many people, are opposed to what is regarded as a commercialisation of the Sabbath".
Although attitudes range from an uncompromising objection to the whole idea of commercial activity of any sort on a Sunday, right through to a more general sense of needing some careful control, we must recognise the fact that there are strong religious
124
convictions among those who serve us in shops. It is not without note that USDAW speaks for 440,000 members, which is a very large section of the community who do need, here in this House, our concern and our sympathy because they serve us so well in shops large and small.
Therefore, I wish to make a few comments about family life to which the noble Baroness has already drawn attention. She has drawn us rather a beautiful picture of the family all shopping on Sunday. But again I notice that there has been very little mention so far in the three impressive speeches that we have heard, of the family life of the 440,000 members of USDAW who are themselves people working in shops. I believe that the pressure on family life today is already very great. Already such a large proportion of homes have both the father and the mother out to work that latch-key children are the order of the day in many parts of our country, and to have Sunday opening is to have one more nail in the coffin of family life as we have known it for a long time in England and as, I believe, we should continue to know it.
I should like to speak for a moment as a local bishop. One-fifth of the people that I confirm today are over 21 and I hardly ever confirm, throughout Norfolk, without confirming a father and a daughter or a mother and a daughter or sometimes three generations. Recently I confirmed together a daughter, her mother and her mother. There is a tremendous desire today to hold the family together and the sweeping generality of Clause 4 to be excised totally from the Shops Act—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for giving way. The right reverend Prelate said that he would not be able to stay until the end of the debate. He spoke of husbands and wives both going out to work. Is he not aware that there are many husbands who are out of work and whose wives are bringing in the money if they are lucky enough to get part-time jobs? Is he against extra employment among the unemployed?
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that perceptive remark. I reckon that both the noble Baroness and myself—indeed all of us in this House—want to do all we can to care for families and especially those out of work. Therefore, I think it is relevant as regards that particular point to say that in a way this type of Bill, as I see it, could encourage a free-for-all in the retail and commercial sector which would bring a sharp escalation of prices, because we should have to pay for unsocial hours and also larger salaries to the people who were asked to work on Sunday. Therefore, in a way, those who are out of work or who are receiving assistance of one sort or another would in the long term—this is designed for the long term—not benefit, but even be harmed.
That brings me to the third area—upon which noble Lords will speak better than I—and that is the social implications of the Bill. In my view, they are too broad. There is the danger that we shall sweep away the whole of the careful fabric of freedom for those who desire to shop, and control and help for those who have to do the selling. In these days when, according to the social trends document—which I know costs £19·95,

125
but it is a useful document—there are millions of people who own refrigerators (to give one small illustration) most of us can afford to buy some food early in the week. We can afford to put something into the freezer cabinet of the fridge and therefore it should not be necessary for at least the impulsive buying of food suddenly on Sunday to take place.
I return to my first point. The social impact is to remind us that it is not a narrow religious regard which says that we do not want the Shops Act to make all Sunday opening possible because Christians would not like it, but to recognise that the whole creation ordinance of the rhythm of life in which our Creator has given us a rest day and work days, means that that rhythm, which is so important for the good social wellbeing of our nation, would be imperilled by this.
I have said enough and I shall come to a conclusion. However, I am in a difficulty. I had so hoped that I might have been able to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, who is about to make his maiden speech, because he has such close links with our lovely City of Norwich. I know him and I know that we shall have a fascinating maiden speech from him. Therefore, I should like to be greatly daring and to welcome what he has to say before he says it under the general theme that when we go to a City dinner often the main course may be a bit heavy and a bit dull—and I have given your Lordships 14 minutes of the main course and spent the fifteenth minute welcoming the noble Viscount—but sometimes that heavy main course is made up for by a delightful sweet, and we look forward to hearing from the noble Viscount.
5 p.m.
Viscount Mackintosh of Halifax: My Lords, I believe that there is a tradition in your Lordships' House to make one's maiden speech on a subject upon which one feels strongly. It may appear not at all surprising to your Lordships that, given my family background, I should have chosen to speak on the question of Sunday trading. Alternatively, it may seem extremely surprising, as the retailing of confectionery is already a perfectly legitimate activity on Sundays. What is surprising to me is why it should be legitimate to sell confectionery but not tea and coffee on a Sunday.
When a law is outdated, it is because the life-style for which it was conceived has altered; life in England and Wales in 1982 has certainly altered since 1950 when the Shops Act came into being. Just as our patterns of life change, so too does trade. The present situation results in an unfortunate restraint on free enterprise, undermines the incentive of small traders to increase their turnover and, as a result, diminishes competition.
Trading is a question of supply and demand; it is a question of response to the market—a consumer market and a market which is determined first and foremost by local market forces. These forces and conditions change from decade to decade and from region to region, and it would seem to me that, whereas the 1950 Act was the result of consolidation, one of the major attractions of this Bill—and one which we should, I feel, not lose sight of—is that it provides
126
the opportunity to have fresh legislation to meet the market forces in which we trade today. Trading and consuming walk hand in hand; when trading we must look to the demands of the consumer. I know that in the past, considerable opposition to piecemeal changes of the Shops Act has come from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I was therefore delighted to read in their 1981 Executive Council policy statement that:
"It is vital, in considering the changing trends in hypermarkets and supermarkets where late-night closing has become operative, that the consumer response is taken note of, and the indications are that the consumer appreciates and takes advantage of the later shopping hours where these are made available on certain trading nights of the week".
The statement goes on to say that:
"It is essential that we give consideration to the consumer aspect and gain the customer as an ally in fighting some of the unjust changes in shops legislation which a vociferous minority have consistently pursued in recent years".
Unfortunately, the conference decision was not to take that initiative, and thereby to maintain the union's policy of opposition against any extension of Sunday trading. However—and I feel this to be extremely significant—the union took this decision because there was no "evidence" to justify the extension of Sunday trading hours. I would suggest that from the findings of the poll disclosed by my noble friend, Lady Trumpington, there is now substantial evidence; two-thirds of the public would seem to substantiate the claim that there is now evidence to justify the extension of Sunday trading beyond that currently permitted by the Shops Act 1950.
Of course, I respect the aim of the union to protect its members. However, in a time of great unemployment—not least among my own generation—this Bill, if enacted, would effectively create employment and benefit shopworkers, and yet with no additional cost to the Government. Thereby, not only would the consumer benefit from this Bill, but so too, would the shopworker. Indeed, in returning the right of the shopkeeper to open his shop when he wishes, we are pursuing declared Government ideals. We remove legislation which represents nannyish intrusion by centralised Government, and in its place restore the ethics of free enterprise and initiative.
Since the 1950 Shops Act, our whole way of life has changed, not least the hours and forms of work in which individuals engage. Nowadays, nearly 70 per cent. of married women go out to work; the pattern of our daily life is changing and, with that, the pattern of our shopping. The need for more flexible legislation to put the onus for deciding on trading hours on the shop owner and not the Government would seem in 1982 to be clear. Flexible shop hours would neither mean seven-day trading nor imply a return to 19th century working hours. They would mean that the individual shop owner was able to balance demand and supply according to the market, according to his locality. This is a Bill of liberalisation and freedom, which will stimulate the market. The Bill will enhance the quality of life, not undermine it. In the National Consumer Council's survey on shopping, one of the problem areas which were highlighted was the absence of local shops. The Bill would provide an incentive for a return to local trading—and I am glad to see

127
that this Bill has the support of the National Union of Small Shopkeepers—while also boosting the market of the high street retailer. This Bill helps to meet the demands of our modern society.
I am sure that many of your Lordships on both sides of the House already benefit from the infringements on the present Act made by the shopkeeper who remains open after eight o'clock at night. But, of course, the shopkeeper remains open for a wide cross-section of the community who regularly finish work after normal closing times. In the National Consumer Council's document, Consumer Concerns, the report records how many comments on shop opening hours came from people who worked, and therefore found it impossible to shop during the week; a substantial number of requests were made for late night opening. Weekend shopping at present is often a nightmare; it should be a pleasure. The family is compelled to shop in the supermarket on a Saturday only. There are many occasions when shopping could and should be a family experience, whether it be buying a new television or a three-piece suite. Our social patterns have changed in the last 50 years, and not least in our shopping habits, and the law should, I feel, respect rather than restrict this movement.
It has been felt that Sunday trading can only increase operation costs—costs which would, in turn, be passed on to the consumer—and, therefore, at the end of the day, will not be in the consumer's interest. In order to alleviate these fears, let me, too, like my noble friend Lady Trumpington, quote the existing situation in Scotland. In the few weeks before Christmas when the multiples open to meet trading demands, the cost of goods remains exactly the same north of the Border as south. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that the same situation would be the practice in England and Wales should this Bill be enacted.
I hope that this Bill will travel speedily through your Lordships' House, and I am most grateful to have had the opportunity to support it.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I have the great honour to be the first person to rise after the noble Viscount and the first who is able to congratulate him on a speech that he has actually made rather than the speech that he will make. I was particularly delighted in the matter of his speech because it happens to accord with my own views and with what I shall say in a moment. But even if I had not been, I should have wanted to congratulate him on his manner of delivering it. I am sure that the House has benefited from hearing him today and will benefit from his experience on future occasions over many years to come. Again, I should like to congratulate him on a most excellent maiden speech. I should also like to thank, as have other speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for having the temerity to introduce, once again, a Bill on this subject—this hoary subject by now—and for giving us all another chance of considering it. I should say that I have an interest in this matter in my capacity as president of the Consumers' Association and a former chairman of the National Consumer Council, but at least I think I can
128
speak for both these bodies and also all the other consumer bodies in the country that I know of who, on this question, if not on every question, are completely united. The consumer bodies in the country are in favour, and have been for many years, of giving freedom to shopkeepers to open and close when they wish. They have made their views clear on many occasions, and have done so in the interests of their own members, for whom they speak, and also other members of the public who are not their own members but who they believe would benefit from a freeing of shops in such a way as this Bill would bring about.
The noble Baroness has referred already, as have other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, to the surveys made, and particularly those made recently, although the ones that have been made recently confirm in broad outline many other surveys that have been made in the last decades, all of which show a sizeable majority for the freedom which this Bill seeks to ensure. Unfortunately, the women, as shown by the most recent MORI survey, are not quite as much in favour of this freedom as the men are. One can only speculate on the reasons for that. But at least what applies for the generality of people in the country clearly does not apply, at least on the evidence we have had so far this afternoon, to the noble Baronesses who have spoken and have so excellently opened our debate today.
The general case is a straightforward one. It is the case for freedom of choice. Consumers should be able to buy what, where, and when they want if only they can make it worthwhile for suppliers to sell to them what, when, and where they want. The law should not prevent consumers exercising this basic freedom of choice. Because the law has got in the way of what people want to do, and would do on a bigger scale if only this law was not there, the law itself has become a kind of archaism which has, I fear, helped to bring all Governments into disrepute. It is fussy. Governments have appeared as though they want to set themselves up as knowing best, better than ordinary people, what their interests are, and doing this on matters on which people should make decisions for themselves rather than having them made for them by Governments.
As I, and those who have the same point of view as I do, see it, unfortunately for the country, all Governments, Labour and Conservative, so far have failed to act themselves on these matters or to support any of the, I think, 12 Private Member's Bills which have been introduced in one or other House on this subject since 1956. My noble friend Lady Phillips mentioned nine, but I have been able to count 12. Not that that matters. It just shows, whether it is nine or 12, how much continuous support there has been, and how much continuous initiative over the years has been shown by Members of this House and the other place in trying to rectify what to many of us seems an unfortunate anomaly in the law.
The argument of successive Governments has been that this issue is one too controversial on which to act. Unless there can be a greater measure of agreement between all the parties concerned, they are not prepared to take the initiative. This always has seemed to me an extremely weak position. If Governments acted only when an issue was completely

129
uncontroversial, then I cannot see what reason we would have for wanting to have Governments at all. Therefore, since Governments are not prepared to act—although we look forward very much to what the Minister is going to tell us at the end of today—it is left to us, irrespective of our party affiliation (and this is not a party matter) to make up our own minds and to express our views accordingly this afternoon.
The positive case for the Bill has been well put already. The anomalies in the present law, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said are perfectly ridiculous. A law with such anomalies to it helps again to bring the whole law into contempt, as does the wide and I fear growing disregard of the law by shopkeepers. I only hope—and I put this to the Minister who is to reply—that the Home Office is not going to be caught out on this issue as it was over the citizen's band radio, which it did not legalise until a large number of people had taken the law into their own hands. I hope, before much larger numbers of shopkeepers than even at present take the law into their own hands, the Government will bow to public opinion and economic necessity and take the necessary action. They, of course, have a chance to do that today, and let us hope they will do it by giving support, or indicating that they will give support, to the Bill which has been introduced by the noble Baroness.
Since the positive case has been well made, in the time I have I am going to try to deal with some of the main objections that have been advanced to the Bill, and try to show that they do not have as much weight to them as perhaps they might seem to have at first sight. They have been set out in the letter from USDAW, which I think has been sent to all Members of this House. No doubt there will be references to this document and the arguments contained in it in the speeches to be made by the noble Lord who is to follow me and by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I hope, to some extent, to anticipate the objections which I believe will be made and, without being too ambitious about it, I hope that what I have to say might be taken into account by them and conceivably, one never knows, might even change the view they have on these matters.
The first objection is that if shopkeepers have the freedom to open and close whenever they like prices will go up against the consumer. There will be extra costs on wages, heating, lighting, and so on, for Sunday and evening opening, and these costs will only be covered if prices are raised. So goes the argument. This seems to me largely unfounded in so far as it rests upon the belief that shops would almost of necessity stay open longer hours than they do at the moment. That this would not necessarily be the case is shown by the fact that although shops at present are allowed to stay open until eight p.m. the numbers that do so are not at all substantial.
I do not believe that it would necessarily be the case that if Sunday opening were made more general, although many more shops would open, that the numbers would necessarily be so very large. But the vital point about the Bill, as has already been said, is that it will not force shops to open; it will allow them to. Obviously very few would choose to stay open seven days a week. Fortunately, as the noble Baroness said in opening this debate today, we have this valuable practical experimentation in Scotland which has been
130
made already, and upon which we can draw. We are not talking in the abstract. We can talk about real cases. As has been pointed out, Habitat shops, Asda shops and others have, by substituting Sunday opening for Monday opening, been able to do this without increasing their costs, according to them, by more than a very small amount, if any. In no case has there been a necessity, I gather, for prices to be increased as a result of Sunday opening. I have not heard any evidence from Scotland so far that where Sunday opening has been gone in for prices to the consumer have risen as a consequence. But one has to admit that costs might rise and in some cases they almost certainly would.
In such cases it would be up to consumers to decide whether the extra convenience of being able to buy at the times they want is an advantage they think it would be worth paying higher prices for. If it turned out that consumers did not buy enough at these higher prices, then of course there would have to be a cutback. Commercial common sense, as the noble Baroness said, would prevail. If people do not want a fully commercialised Sunday, then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, it will not happen. But surely the people ought to be able to decide that for themselves. If they were allowed to, as the noble Viscount has just said, supply and demand will determine the final outcome.
The second main objection referred to in the USDAW letter is that shopworkers would be exploited by having to work longer hours if this Bill became law. That does not seem to me to follow either, partly because, as I have just said, just because shops are allowed to open for longer hours they would not necessarily do so. If it is a case of working unsocial hours and being paid for them, extra payments would become necessary and the remedy would lie with the shopworkers themselves. They have a strong and effective union; they can bargain collectively through that union or as individuals; and if any attempt were made to impose upon shop workers in general longer or more unsocial hours than they choose to work without proper compensation, then of course it would not happen.
However, once again, as has been mentioned already, Scotland is a case in point because when USDAW called a poll before the Co-op opened a hypermarket in Glasgow and also the House of Fraser stores, it turned out there was an overwhelming vote of USDAW members in favour of Sunday opening. If the same procedure were followed in other places, my expectation is that if proper compensation were paid to the workers concerned they would follow in England what has been done in Scotland. So, I would submit that the two main stock objections which have been raised time and time again to this Bill do not themselves have nearly so much force as might appear at first sight. If that is so, the positive case I mentioned at the beginning of my speech of allowing freedom to shopkeepers to open when they like seems to me overwhelming, and I very much hope it will turn out today to be the view of this House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I wonder whether I may crave the indulgence of this House and ask a question of my noble friend the Minister. It has come to my notice, and has since been confirmed, that at 16.21 it appeared on the tape that the Home Secretary in another place had made a Statement to the effect

131
that there will be no change in Sunday trading laws. Am I right to feel utterly amazed that this Statement should have been made before any Statement has come from my noble friend Lord Belstead as Minister in this House and while this debate is still in progress?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I will reply in a little more detail when I come to make my contribution to the debate. Contrary to what my noble friend Lady Trumpington has assumed from what she has gathered from the tape, the Home Office Ministers felt that it would be treating both Houses with proper respect for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to make an Answer to a Question in another place at the same time as I was taking part in this debate in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, does that not imply—
Lord Sandys: Order, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is due to speak.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Viscount on his maiden speech and express the wish that he will be able to come here frequently and give us the point of view of the younger men. I should also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, first on her persistence, but more on the quality of her speech in introducing the Bill. However, I regret to say that, even if I accepted the objectives of the Bill, I could not agree that this Bill is the right way of doing it; and I will come to that in due course.
I would say that what this Bill is really about is Sunday trading, and I think the noble Baroness showed that by what she said in her speech. The other things are not so important; the real issue here is Sunday trading. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, that there is a Consumer Co-operative Movement which is older than some of the consumer organisations to which he referred, and that that consumer organisation—the Co-operative Movement—has very great contacts with consumers. It meets them every day over the counter. It also has regular meetings of its members; it also has boards of directors who are elected by the members. It is therefore in a very strong position as regards stating the view of consumers.
It has found from its contacts with its members that there is a desire for some change and that by and large the consumers do not like the anomalies which this House is fully acquainted with and would like the Government or somebody else to have a real go and see if it is not possible to get rid of at least some of the anomalies. But we have no evidence from among our consumer members—none whatever—that there is a strong desire to commercialise Sunday. There is no evidence at all to support that.—
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to ask him how he squares what he has just said with the evident success of the Co-op hyper-
132
market which has been opened in Glasgow? I gather that it has been a considerable success and has met the needs of the people of that city. Glasgow cannot be so unlike other cities: why should it not apply elsewhere as well?
Lord Jacques: My Lords, my reply to that is this: very often, in order to keep our market share, we are forced to do things we would rather not do and this is a point I shall be dealing with later in my speech. The Consumer Co-operative Movement is opposed to this Bill and to any Bill which gives complete freedom of trade on Sunday, for both economic and social reasons. We are firmly of the opinion that if there was a free-for-all on Sunday many traders who do not wish to have their shops open on Sundays would be forced to do so because they could not risk losing part of their market share. That is the real world. The real world is not this voluntary business where you can please yourself—that is the fairy world. The real world is: Can you afford to do what you want to do and lose part of your market share? The fact is that many cannot afford that and many traders would be forced to open on Sunday in order to avoid losing part of their market share because they wanted to keep their business viable.
The consumer purse is not elastic and consequently the spreading of shopkeeping over seven days instead of six will not by itself increase the amount of business that is available; it will merely spread it over. But there is no doubt whatever that costs would be increased, first because people would be working on some days when premium payments would have to be made to the staff whereas that would not be the case on other days. If there were longer shop hours, because they were spread over seven days—and I have no doubt there would be longer shop hours—there would be the additional costs of lighting and heating, and they would have to be borne in the end by the consumer. There would be a tendency on the part of the trader, as there always is, to avoid those additional costs, and to try to do that he might spread his staff more thinly over the seven days, and I am afraid that the standard of service given in the shops would suffer as a result.
We find it exceedingly difficult to get some of our staff to work on Saturdays, never mind Sundays. About 70 per cent. of shopworkers are women, almost one-half of them married. In the majority of cases their husbands are at home on Saturday afternoons and, because of that, Saturday afternoons are times for a family get-together; they want to be at home because their husbands are at home. So we have considerable difficulty getting adequate staff of the right quality for Saturday afternoons.
But if we then said to them, "We want you to work not only on Saturdays, when your husbands are at home, but on Sunday afternoons as well, when your husbands are at home as well", we should lose many of our best staff. Rather than accept that state of affairs, many of them would depart. However, many of them would be in the position of the trader; they would be forced to work on Sundays, even though they did not want to, because they could not take the risk of unemployment. So it is not just a question of choice; there are forces behind the scenes which affect the decision and which must be taken into account.

133
We believe that have a fundamental effect on day opening would believe it would not be a good life and we Sundays. We have seen what has to commercialise in other countries where, for examp appened in start their sales not on a Saturday, departmental afternoon. We say we can well do without on a Sunday we should reserve Sunday as a day on that and that least some measure of rest. Once the we have at re opened and shoppings became general we the public services would become Sundays, and Sunday would become just .
I believe that in the end this on which there must be some an should be prepared to compromise by and to open to sell anything they wish to 1 p.m. on sundays. I believe that would be a until compromise which would get rid of many of the anomalies because, as I say, until one o'clock they could sell what they liked and that would automatically get rid of the anomalies until at least 1 p.m. I also believe—I say this especially to my noble friend Lord Allen—that the bigger shops would not be affected. I think it would be only the corner shops that would be affected if Sunday opening was limited till 1 p.m. That would, therefore, be a good solution both from the point of view of getting rid of anomalies and for the workers. And if the noble Baroness would accept that there should be a new Bill along lines such as those and she agreed to scrap the present measure, I would heartily go along with her.
I come to the Bill itself, and I suggest it would make very bad law in text. Let us consider what the Bill proposes. It repeals Parts 1, 3, 4 and Section 70 of the principal Act. In the parts of the Act left unrepealed there would remain numerous references to the parts being repealed. Nothing is said about those in the Bill and nobody, not even the noble Baroness in her speech, has referred to that, although it would leave a most unsatisfactory position. The Acts contain eight schedules and as one of them deals with the repeal of former legislation, we can forget that and say it leaves seven schedules. Of those seven, six would either be repealed or amended if this Bill became law, and nothing whatever is said about that in this measure.
This Bill is a completely unsatisfactory instrument for achieving its object, and it would be far too much to expect the Committee to deal with all the necessary amendments in order to get the Bill into proper shape. But supposing the Committee did that. I submit that the text of the law would then be in a very improper state, considering all the numerous amendments, with parts of the original Act having been repealed and detailed amendments all over the place. It would be a most unsatisfactory statement of law and that, I hope, will be taken into account when, or if, the House divides on the Second Reading.
Finally, I wish to give the view of the Retail Consortium, which represents more than 90 per cent. of retailers—large, small, multiples, Co-op, department stores, the lot—who have considered the Bill. They do not consider it is the right way to make changes in the law, although they believe that an attempt should be made to study the law with a view to some changes. They suggest there should be a departmental committee
134
of at which all the parties concerned, including should participate; that that should be followed by a consultative ; and that if, after that document, there to be legislation, it should be legislation by the of the day. That is the to deal with the position we have arising out of the Act 1950, in the manner suggested by this Bill.
5.38 p.m.
Lordof High: My Lords, I join in congratulating our maiden , the noble viscount, Lord Mackintosh, and he will come here frequently to the standard for competition and consumer choice which did so well today. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on bringing the Bill forward and on the way in which she moved the Second Reading. I recall that it was her Motion last May on the need to amend the Shops Act, and in particular a very remarkable sppech by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on that occasion, which seemed to some of us to reveal a wider consensus about the possibility of getting agreement to repeal the 1950 Act outright rather than to go in to all of the contortions necessary to oblige the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and others to amend and remove the acknowledged absurdities.
Indeed, a direct outcome of the debate was an informal association of some Cross-Bench Peers and others in a Repeal Group, of which I am the secretary, which has given some encouragement to the noble Baroness in moving her Private Member's Bill; though I must say that she did not need all that much encouragement.
It is in that context that I should like to advance some wider reasons why I think that noble Lords should open their minds to this rather radical approach of outright repeal, despite some possible deficiencies that we would need to put right at a later stage. One of the earlier outcomes of the Repeal Group's deliberations was a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on 15th October, in reply to which the Lord Chancellor reported that there were then in force 3,109 public general Acts, in addition to 12,897 general statutory instruments, and that in 1980 alone the statute book had increased by 2,866 pages. Even noble Lords who are not daily engaged in hunting and shooting might agree that there is some scope here for useful reduction.
I want to ask, how can we explain this flood of laws, for which "legislative incontinence" would not be too strong an expression? In 1965 no less a legal authority than the late Lord Radcliffe gave at the London School of Economics an oration with the title of the Dissolving Society, in which he quoted with approval one of the great founding fathers of the American revolution, who warned that what he called "the excessive use of legislative power" was one of the most dangerous diseases to which a Government were exposed. Lord Radcliffe went on to argue that the real art of political theory—an art, he thought, in which public life had become sadly deficient—lies in
" analysing and expounding the circumstances and occasions upon which, whatever the wishes of a majority, they ought not to be given effect to at the expense of a minority ".

135
How much worse it with the Shops Act, where the wishes of a minority are given effect at the expense of the majority that we have heard about from other speakers.
Many noble Lords will recall that last Wednesday we had a debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about excessive reliance on market forces. Anyone who was present will recall the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, who gave a positively rollicking account of how successive Governments of bothe partie; had submerged the market beneath a deluge of laws and regulations.
I never tire of emphasising that a great deal of coercive law is necessary in a free society; for example, in order to maintain competition, to require honest disclosure, to enforce contracts, to guarantee accurate weights and measures, and, above all, to protect vulnerable minorities who are unable to stand on their own feet in a competitive market. But in this mature democracy, do we really need the full majesty of law to determine when a housewife can go shopping, on which days and at what hours she may take her shopping basket to the shop of her choice? Do we need an army of inspectors, informers, and magistrates to threaten penalties against willing buyers and willing sellers plying their mutually beneficial trade at hours which perhaps we happen not to favour? Above all, do we need a full-blown statute of 77 sections, in five parts, with eight schedules to distinguish between goods that can and cannot be sold, between the religious credentials of retailers whom we permit to open, or prohibit from opening, on Sundays, or between areas that may or may not legitimately be regarded as holiday resorts for which theological dispensations are pronounced?
In our debate last Wednesday the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, as reported at col. 1332 of the Official Report, that the obstacle to all our hopes was,
" that we are polarised, that sectional interests dominate rather than the interests of the community ".
Is there really any doubt that the chief enemy of freedom to shop is the sectional, protective, if you like, ASLEF mentality represented by USDAW, which persists in confusing hours of opening with hours of work?
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about partly-cooked tripe, and it seems to me that there was a whiff of that in the USDAW memorandum, which was distributed on a strictly selective basis to some noble Lords. In the accompanying letter that I was shown the deputy general secretary of USDAW says of the Bill before us:
" It is the considered view of the unions' 440,000 members that there is no real or genuine demand for abolition ".
To the fraud of claiming unanimity, they add the falsehood of denying the existence of evidence, which we have heard about today, of widespread public support for freedom to shop. For my money, even more objectionable is USDAW's claim to judge what it dares to call "adequate" shopping facilities, as though we would consult telephone operators about when we are free to ring our friends. USDAW then dresses up its special pleading as economic argumentation, which I was sorry to see took in the right reverend Prelate more perhaps than he should have been taken in, because much of that argumentation is
136
a repetition of what we heard in the bitter opposition to Mr. Heath's abolition he resale price maintenance in 1963. every kind of economic and social disaster and visitation was predicted by lobbies of retailers and producers rived of the power to dictate uniform as if they were deled goods from Land's End to John prices for branfrom Harrods to the corner store.
The proof of the pudsing was that free pricing opened the way of Groats and which were beneficial alike to consumers or changes and efficient retailers. No one would shopwork of going back on the repeal of resale price now which has brought above all wider within maintenance prices and services to match the changing variety in of shoppers' choice. Likewise, the ending requirement restrictions on shop opening would proof of the nore flexibility to spread further advantages wide ailing as part of the service economy, to which we must look for a growing proportion of our employment in the years ahead.
I conclude with a modest prediction that if enough of your Lordships have the candour and whatever courage it might require to vote for freedom and to see the Bill through, no one, not even USDAW, in 10 years' time would dream of restoring this cumbersome, inquisitorial, impertinent intervention between the housewife and her chosen time and form of shopping.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, what a wonderful speech to follow, with those splendid words at the end! I must start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, whose speech I was fortunate enough just to be able to hear. If I may say so, it was a speech of great clarity of thought and of delivery, and one of which we can all be proud for a maiden speaker. I hope that we shall hear much of him in the future.
I should also very much like to congratulate my noble and doughty friend Lady Trumpington, who is again tackling the kind of Bill which people have been struggling to try to get onto the statute book, notwithstanding a fair degree of opposition and notwithstanding a very pusillanimous approach by Governments of all kinds and all parties over the years—an effort to ignore, as is clear from the statistics that my noble friend and others were able to give us, an overwhelming desire by most of the ordinary people of the country. Whether or not this is a good thing is another matter. The fact is that the principle of the Bill is certainly something that the country would like.
Whether it is the right Bill, I do not know; and I shall come in a minute to points I have that I do not like about it. When thinking about this I was attracted by the recommendations of the Retail Consortium, which were that there should be an inquiry. Then it occurred to me that, if that was to happen, then, in the first place, one could not be sure the Government would hold an inquiry and, in the second place, if they did, it would rumble on, come up with a recommendation and the Government would ignore it again. So, really, we have got to get on with this; and, though perhaps this Bill itself could be improved (and what is a Committee stage for except that?), the fact is

137
that it is succinct, it is to the point and it is 90 per cent. of the way there.
If I had any further doubts, the evidence from Scotland which I have gathered and which my noble friend Lady Trumpington spelled out to us would seem to me to be overwhelmingly in favour of the fact that if this Bill in roughly its present form were to become law there would not be a disastrous and unmanageable result, nor would all the workers throughout the retail trades be desperately overworked and made to do things which were unreasonable. There is all sorts of evidence that in Scotland it balances itself out. The USDAW paper to which reference has been made says that 70 per cent. of the shops employ less than four people, and from that they go on to deduce that those less than four people will be desperately over-worked. The answer is that they will not, because the practicalities of life, even in the case of shops that are entirely run by their owners' families, will ensure that they will adjust themselves to suit the circumstances.
I live in the Isle of Wight, where even under the 1950 Act we have a certain amount of latitude because we are in a holiday area. There is no evidence that, as a result, the shops stay open more than the people themselves want if they are the shoppers or that the shopkeepers are prepared to give of their service if they are the shopkeepers. It balances itself out very well; and the point about the 70 per cent. being in these very small shops is that, as your Lordships know, the growing efficiency of modern shopkeeping at the top level of the supermarkets is making it increasingly difficult for the small shopkeepers to stay in business.
Personally, I believe it to be a disaster that the supermarkets are getting more and more efficient all the time and that the small corner shop is therefore disappearing. I should have thought that, if we had this extra latitude, then, as we have heard is the case in Scotland, not all the big shops would find it practicable to take advantage of the lack of law and it would be the smaller ones which would get the benefit. I should have thought that this would redress the balance very nicely in the sort of direction which we would want, and would give that extra bit of freedom to the small trader to compete on level terms. It seems to me only fair to him, and a very reasonable approach altogether.
So I would say that this Bill, or something very like it, is highly desirable. I would add, also, that if we do not have a Bill like this, or an Act of Parliament based on this Bill, we shall go on stumbling along with the law in this area increasingly in disrepute in England and Wales. I think that any law which is in disrepute because it is not enforced properly is bad law, and it is up to us to make sure that that sort of law does not exist. Hence the need to repeal the relevant sections of the Act which we are dealing with now.
But clearly, my Lords, amendments will be necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said—I agree with him on this point—because, in the nature of things, leaving Part II in and, I think, Part V, and removing the others, there is cross-reference in the parts which are to remain to the parts that are coming out. So these will have to be rationalised; and I would have hoped that the Government would have given some help to my noble friend to produce in a professional
138
sort of way the minor adjustments that are necessary in order to make this work.
There is another area where it is relevant, and that is that I suspect that Part II—which, after all, was enacted in 1950—has in some respects been overtaken by various employment protection legislation, which all parties support, which has been put on the statute book since then. I should have thought that there was a technical need on the part of the Government to assist my noble friend in making this straightforward.
My Lords, perhaps I may wait for a moment. I am being terribly upset by this chattering going on on my starboard quarter. I must now come to my point, which is why I do not want to be distracted at this time. It is that, whatever my noble friend Lord Belstead is going to say to explain it away, I personally think it is a grave affront to this House that the Home Secretary should get up in the House of Commons in the middle of this debate—in fact, after it had only just started—and say flatly that the Government will not act to relax Sunday trading laws. I know this was raised by my noble friend Lady Trumpington immediately because it is a matter of concern, and my noble friend Lord Belstead said that he would deal with it when he came to speak at the end of the debate, but it really makes the debate rather pointless if a Minister in another place gets up and strikes at the very heart of the Bill that we are to discuss before this House has had a chance to discuss it. I think we will look to my noble friend at least to explain this clearly, and I hope he will give serious thought to a very careful apology for, I consider, an act of disrespect to this House by another place.
Because of this, my Lords, quite apart from the fact that I think this Bill needs to be given a push along (because if it is not given a push along by us it is not going to get any sort of help from other sources; and, as I said at the beginning of my speech, Governments have been very dilatory in this area), I would above everything hope that my noble friend, if it should be necessary for her so to do, will take this Bill to a Division, if only to make it clear to Ministers in another place that we are determined to have something and will not be put off by a ministerial Statement just as the debate starts. I hope very much that, whatever views your Lordships may have in general terms about this Bill, you will feel free and willing to come into the Lobby to push this Bill through in order to so show the other place that we mean business.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he is willing to give us statistics to support the remarkable statement that he made—that is, that there is, "an over-whelming desire of the people of this country for this Bill"?
Lord Mottistone: Yes, my Lords. The statistics were in fact quoted by my noble friend Lady Trumpington. She quoted various groups of questionnaires that had been answered, from which it emerged that the figures were, I think, something like 63 per cent. in favour and (was it?) 33 per cent. against, and that only 4 per cent. did not know. That is two-thirds, roughly. Or I think there were three sets of figures that my noble friend may have quoted. Perhaps when she winds up she may be able to clarify this. But all sets

139
of figures showed that two-thirds of those consulted were in favour of some sort of freeing of trading. It is not just Sunday trading—one must get that quite clear. One wants the sort of freedom to trade that in fact goes on in the back streets of London near where I live, with those splendid chaps who have come from our ex-colonies to do this for us, and who trade when we want them to. It is splendid. It is not only Sundays; it is all the days of the week. That is the sort of picture that we want for the small trader.
6 p.m.
Lord Allen of Fallowfield: My Lords, may I start by asking your Lordships to excuse the fact that I shall not be able to stay until the conclusion of the debate because of a long-standing appointment. I intend no discourtesy to the House or, particularly, to the noble Baroness in defence of her Bill and what she said about that Bill. Having said that, may I say that I, personally, hope that the Government do not look favourably on this Bill. I think that those who know me will regard my approach to this Bill and what I shall say in this debate as marginally different from what I have said previously. That I will explain in a moment.
Let me hasten to add that I am not persuaded in that thought by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, trying to anticipate what he thought I was going to say. He could not be more wrong, as I am sure he will agree in a moment, when he too was talking about not all of the shops opening. Here, he is putting up an answer to the USDAW paper (which I did not write) when he says that all the shops would not open. I think it shows, if I may say so, an abysmal ignorance of the competitive atmosphere of British retailing. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I think gave the answer. Is it to be assumed for one moment that a large multiple operator in the United Kingdom, in intense competition with others, will stand by and see his competitors open on Sunday while he is closed? Those who have been in retail distribution for many years know the answer to that. I must say that it is not the one that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, came up with.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, may I ask a question on that point? If the noble Lord is right, how can he explain what has happened in Scotland, where the Sunday trading provisions do not apply and where only a minority of shops have taken advantage of the law? Why should Scotland be so different from what might happen in England?
Lord Allen of Fallowfield: My Lords, if I had time I would deal with it. I can deal with it privately with the noble Lord, if he wishes. It so happens that when that practice came into operation in Glasgow, it came into operation against a very difficult economic background. It came into being, too, with a type of agreement different from that at the present time. I know that because I sought an endorsement of it on behalf of those who negotiated it; so that I know a little background, not from what I have read in the papers but from practical experience of what took place at the time.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. What the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington has said, seems to me to be a very important point. Surely the House should have the benefit of the reply and not just the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, in the bar afterwards.
Lord Allen of Fallowfield: My Lords, it may be an important point to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, but I do not feel it necessary for me to be distracted by attempting to give the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington the reply that he wishes, apart from that which I have already given.
I think that in looking at this debate one must look at retail distribution as an undertaking of great diversity. Those who have been directly associated with retailing for a large number of years have witnessed retailing making rapid strides in the last two decades. This process of change is quickening very much. I think it is acknowledged that the business of retailing is a highly competitive one, perhaps one of the most competitive in the United Kingdom. Figures have been bandied around: two-thirds of its labour force are women and 89 per cent. of the women are part-time workers, so that you have the picture of the labour force employed in retail distribution today. There is no other labour force in the United Kingdom comprising so many women and so many part-time women workers as in retail distribution. Therein lies a social problem, apart from any other considerations that previous speakers referred to in this debate.
Looking back on the past 20 years or so, there have been roughly 20 attempts in this House and in the other place to amend or vary the current legislation now under examination. All those attempts are no doubt well-meaning, are seen by the proponents of the suggested change as well-meaning and as such by those who support them. But they are seen by others, and particularly by those who have been directly involved in this business, as meddling and attempting to deal with legislation in a piecemeal fashion. I accept that the dramatic changes which have taken place throughout the past two decades bring with them a strong case for an exhaustive examination of the need for change in legislation. That is where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when he is critical of the Administration and their failure to look favourably at this Bill.
In saying what I have said, it is not to concede the case for the Bill made out by the noble Baroness today. I accept that the change calls for an examination in depth of the situation which is confronting this country at the present time. I must say that I prefer a change of that kind to the constant, almost one-a-year attempts spread over the last 20 years in a piecemeal fashion to change legislation. I do not believe, if the legislation is so irksome, that that is the way to make it satisfactory or sensible to all concerned in this business.
I think the arguments for and against changes in trading hours have been advanced, no doubt with conviction and, certainly, in unqualified terms. I have made my contribution in the past to the exchange of views in this House and outside; and it is for this reason that I do not intend in this debate to weary the House by going over the same, almost threadbare, arguments again—given the fact that so many arguments

141
for and against change have been put that one is left with the inescapable conclusion that the controversy that surrounds the subject serves to demonstrate the serious economic and social consequences which may follow any piecemeal attempt to change the legislation.
We have heard very little about the economic effects of the proposed change. In a trade so diverse and highly competitive as retailing, it is perhaps not so surprising that there are countless views on trading hours and also many vested interests. This debate raised many issues of vital concerns to those who are owners of retail businesses, to those who are employed and, last but not least, to the customers. I want to say here that I personally believe that the Government should look exhaustively at this problem on a tripartite basis.
Reference has been made to nearly half a million working people employed in the distributive business. I believe that facilities should be there for an input from that half-million workers into the problem confronting distribution. I believe that facilities should be there for an input from the employers in retailing in this country. Equally, I believe that the voice of the Government must be heard. I believe that on that tripartite basis, either by commission or inquiry, one can get to a stage of getting some sensible legislation apart from that which we have seen attempted here today, and of course in this House previously. I make an appeal to the Government to consider this very seriously and not to be persuaded to follow the path of piecemeal reform.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question before he resumes his seat? He mentioned that further consideration should be given to this matter on a tripartite basis of the union, the Government and the employers. Would he also suggest that the consumers may be represented in any discussion that may take place?
Lord Allen of Fallowfield: Yes, my Lords, certainly.
6.12 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is customary and correct that we congratulate maiden speeches in your Lordships' House. Would it be too bad a joke to say that we have had a very sweet speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Mackintosh, logical and persuasive in the extreme? There is an old saying that the law is an ass—incidentally, it is legal to buy ass fodder on a Sunday—and, being an admirer of the law and also one who asserts without irony that some of my best friends are lawyers, it is no comfort to have indestructible proof that in the case of Sunday opening the law is an ass and we all know the consequences of that lack of respect for an obedience of the law in general.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, noticed sonic of these oddities. It is not strictly true that it is illegal to buy uncooked tripe on a Sunday. You can buy it from a Jewish butcher who keepeth the Sabbath, but not from a Moslem butcher of equally devout frame of mind. When Your Lordships who yearn for tripe can actually get it cooked or partly cooked on a Sunday from any shop prepared to sell it. When it is legal to buy soft porn from a bookshop but not a Bible, except at a railway or bus station—but you cannot buy a
142
Bible at an airport—what man of religion would go to strike-bound Crewe to buy a Bible on a Sunday?
It is legal to buy fodder not only for asses but also for horses and mules. I am lucky enough to enjoy horses and move in the equestrian world. I also enjoy the possession of dogs. I cannot buy dog food on a Sunday, but I may by law buy fodder at shops and inns. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that there is no clamour for Trust Houses Forte to start selling mule fodder. I agree, though, that there is a public demand for Sunday opening for less esoteric things than hard food for mules.
A large "out of town discount store "—as it is described—carried out an opinion poll. I suspect that it was very fair. The questionnaire posed the question quite simply: "Do you think shops should be allowed to open on a Sunday? "Of the 210 replies, 21 were against; the majority of them were on religious grounds. The remainder were in favour. The opinion polls carried out by MORI have been quoted by my noble friend Lady Trumpington and showed that 64 per cent. were in favour of a greater relaxation in the trading laws. Of course, both Dicky Dirt's and the other shop situated outside Maidstone have axes to grind; they want the shops to open. Incidentally, in the first in-shop poll a child gave his reason for wanting Sunday opening. He said:
'Yes, only sweet shops are open on a Sunday and it will be a change from sweet shops ".
Dare I say: "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings?"
The noble Lords, Lord Allen and Lord Jacques, have shown the objections of USDAW. I suggest that the noble Lords, Lord Young of Dartington and Lord Mottistone, have previously disproved them and also disproved the allegations of exploitation and price increases. There has been absolutely no evidence whatsoever of this in Scotland.
Incidentally, why is selling soft porn not exploiting the shop worker, when selling a razor is? Why does sitting at the check-out counter of a garage, receiving money for petrol and sweets, on a Sunday pose a greater physical or moral threat than sitting at the check-out counter of a grocery shop selling baked beans or tinned carrots? Of course, the same employee is entitled to be at the receipt of custom for fresh carrots.
This Bill does not say that shops have to open on a Sunday, any more than the present law says that shops must stay open until 8 p.m. on weekdays or 9 p.m. on Saturdays. My noble friend Lady Trumpington has shown that beyond doubt. This is no diktat or ukase. Only the permission of a free society is required. On the Continent all shops do not open. In Scotland all shops do not open. To be quite honest if you drive through Inverness on a Sunday you would not have the faintest idea that any shops were allowed to open at all. They just do not open. In other parts of Scotland some shops do and other shops do not. The need is proved.
The Lord's Day Observance Society will doubtless also object; but surely we in the late 20th century should not be bound by 17th century Sabbatarianism. Are France or Scotland any less godly than England, or more so for that matter? Those who believe it wrong to shop on a Sunday are not forced by this Bill

143
to buy on a Sunday. Certainly those whose religious conscience says they should not work on a Sunday should be protected. If we give the Bill a Second Reading I suggest that that aspect could be amended easily in Committee.
Having observed the present law, I am partially convinced that it had the same author as the ASLEF rule book. Both the law and the rule book show the same love of the past, the same devotion to outdated, restrictive practices. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, not only noticed that but has also pointed out the benefits of economy and scale which will occur as a result of the change of law. My noble friend Lady Trumpington has shown other benefits and has done us a service, as have the National Consumer Council in helping to promote this Bill.
I hope that the possibly archaic institution of your Lordships' House allied to a Quango can bring this well deserved change in the law. The idea of all being allowed to sell everything up until 1 p.m. on Sunday or nothing after that will have to be compromised, in that petrol and restaurants and all the other exceptions will soon raise their heads after 1 p.m. as they do now before it on a Sunday. There will still be pressure for change again. Let us do the whole change now and not mess about. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, let us get on with it.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, what comes across to me clearly is that the present position as regards the existing law on Sunday trading is unsatisfactory and should not be allowed to continue. To this extent, the House, I am sure, is very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for having brought the subject up once again. Whether her answer is the right one is in my view a very different question. What is needed is a law that takes account of changes in society, that is practicable and enforceable but one that also preserves the character of Sunday so far as possible. It is on that aspect that I should like to address a few remarks to your Lordships. I have no argument against the Bill on the first two counts. On the third, I believe that it is far too drastic and would cause a certain amount of damage.
The idea that Sunday should be a special day of rest and recreation is not just a question of 17th century sabbatarianism but rather, as Christ himself said:
" The Sabbath was made for the good of man ".
Incidentally, in saying that, I believe he carried forward the idea from the Old Testament to New Testament times—that there should be one day of rest per week. As I see it, the God who loves us realised that it was necessary for our welfare and for the good health of our body, mind and spirit that we should set one day apart.
In my view, this depends on three aspects of freedom for the individual. The first aspect of freedom is the freedom to have one day a week free from work, for rest and recreation. In the kind of free-for-all in the commercial sector that would be brought about by the Bill, there would be a cost. We have heard a lot of evidence given to your Lordships' House that in fact there would not be a question of higher prices, but I
144
should like to quote what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—who unfortunately cannot be here today—on 13th March 1979, at column 587:
"As has already been said, the public purse is not elastic. Extending the purchasing period to seven days will not mean that the housewife suddenly has more money to spend ".
He also said:
" the extension of Sunday opening is undesirable. It is bound to put up the cost of distribution because, as American experience has shown, total trade will not be increased but merely spread over a longer period of time, namely, seven days instead of six. This will lead to higher labour costs and to increased prices that inevitably will be paid by the customer on whatever day of the week she shops ".
There is another point that I do not think has been mentioned so far, and that is the increased use of energy for the additional lighting and heating. The retail trade is a very heavy user of energy. But the greatest cost would fall in the form of human wear and tear on those who would have to work, and this would not be just the shop workers but also the police and transport employees and so on who would have to put in extra work if there were widespread opening on Sundays.
I believe our own personal experience shows that we were created with a rhythm of life, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich said, that requires us to have one day a week quietly at rest or at recreation. It may be said that that day of rest can be on any day of the week and it does not matter which. In my view that ignores the family aspect, and therefore my next freedom is the freedom to enjoy one day a week with one's family. I think it has been stressed already that this is a particularly important factor in the retail industry; and the statistic that impresses me most is that, in the retail food trade, which is of course much affected by the Bill, nearly half the women employed are married. At a time when there are already far too many pressures militating against the family, let us not unnecessarily add one more.
My third freedom is the freedom to be able to set apart one day a week to worship God unhurriedly and with one's fellow Christians. This is a basic Christian requirement. The opportunity for a hurried visit to 8 o'clock Communion before a day's work may meet part of the requirement, but I do not believe it is adequate and meets everyone's needs. Also, may I remind your Lordships that this freedom is exercised by much more than a tiny majority? I believe that vastly more people go to church each Sunday than, for example, watch league football on Saturdays. I believe, therefore, that this Bill would impinge on those three aspects of our individual freedom and that for the sake of materialism we should be drastically impairing the quality of life in this country.
May I add my pleas to those of other noble Lords to the Government that they should step in to bring the situation back under control? There exists the Crathorne Report of 1964, which of course is now covered by 18 years of dust, or whatever else may cover it. The report recommended that the general requirement that shops should be closed on Sunday should remain, but that there should be clarification of the law and an extension of exemptions. But there is no easy solution to the problem raised by the noble

145
Baroness and it may well be that some wider consultation would be desirable. We should seek for a solution which protects Sunday as a day of rest in the interest of our own bodily, mental and spiritual welfare.
May I add one final note, which is that, if my post is anything to go by, there are an amazing number of people who are interested in the religious aspect of Sunday. I was looking at The Bible last night to see if I could find any particular word, and I did not until this morning, when I found the following passage from Isaiah. The Lord says:
' If you treat the Sabbath as sacred and do not pursue your interests on that day … you will find the joy that comes from serving me ".
6.26 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has just said although I am not a sabbatarian. However, before I get on to that I should first like to say a word of congratulation to the noble Viscount, Lord Mackintosh, for his maiden speech, which I thought was very well phrased, very lucid, very clear and frank—and although I disagreed with it, I disagreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, even more.
This Bill is to give freedom to shops to open at such times as they think fit. I believe that anybody who has been on the other side of the counter—and it is for those people that I speak today—knows that there is no such freedom. The restraint on shopkeepers is not just the weakly-administered or much neglected law which was passed by Parliament; it is the iron law of competition. The freedom of the shopkeeper is to open as early and to close as late as the next shop down the road which is engaged in the same business, and the hours of the next shop are in turn determined by his immediate rival. If you are a bigger concern and you want to lose your share of the market, choose freely when you will open and pay no regard to anybody else.
This is the age of the aggressive consumer—and I see their representative behind me—
Baroness Trumpington: I am so sorry, my Lords: I merely said, "I am".
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am sorry. The noble Lord, Lord Young, is the chairman of the Consumers' Council and the Consumers' Association. Consumers are now quite an aggressive body. They believe that their interests should come first, second and last. Perhaps it is a throwback to the era of shortages during and immediately after the war. In those days the customer had to behave as if the shopkeeper was always right, instead of vice versa. Of course, that is all long ago; but the result is that the good, kind, compassionate Lady Trumpington can come here with this Bill which takes very little account of the social and economic consequences of what is being proposed.
I admire the brevity, the lucidity, the sweeping nature and the timing of the Bill, but I warn the noble Baroness that she will have to be careful. I say that because the right honourable gentleman who sits for Bristol, South-East, might find that it is a very good model of the legislation which he has in mind to
146
abolish this Chamber. He wants to do it as swiftly as she wants to reform the Shops Acts.
Today, the problems of the shopkeeper and the customer are sharper, because we are no longer just a nation of shopkeepers. We are a nation of multiracial shopkeepers, and very fine shopkeepers most of them are. But they have, even now, to work hard and long, even within the permitted hours, to earn every penny that they need to meet their financial obligations. Somebody has spoken about shopkeepers not availing themselves of the eight o'clock limit, but they do in my district. In my suburb, practically all the grocers and newsagents are Indian and we have never had more courteous and efficient shopkeepers. But they have to be protected from themselves and from one another. All shopkeepers recognise their duty to serve the public, but they must be the servants of the public, and not their slaves.
I come from a large, extended family of intelligent thrifty, hardworking people, many of whom went into the retail trade, and we know what hard lives they led. A husband and wife could never go out together in shopping hours, and after the shop closed it was usually too late. Worse, they could never go on holiday together. This is still the position of the small shopkeeper. It came as a great relief to them when shopping hours were curtailed to the extent that they are curtailed today, and when the half-day closing became statutory.
My father did not have a retail shop. He was a shop assistant and, over a long lifetime, he was very much aware of what the law, as well as his trade union—which was that of the noble Lord, Lord Allen—had done to protect the standards of the shop worker. Of course, we shall not return to those terrible conditions which existed before the first war. Wells wrote in Kipps about the plight of the drapers who lived-in, but the plight of the people in the grocery trade who lived-in was even worse. In those days, their hours were long. They finished at midnight on Saturday, and the only reason they did not go on in his shop was that the slave driver, who owned it, was a very strict Christian and sabbatarian.
Somebody said that shop assistants have a strong trade union. They do have a very good trade union, but not enough of them are in it and never have been. They depend very much upon the protection of the law. There is not even full employment now to protect them from exploitation. I do not think that any Government will leave them and their employers the victims of pure competition. There is no need today for the late closing of food shops; the refrigerator and the deep freeze enable people to shop for a week or more. I should have thought that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, could go without wanting to buy dog food on Sundays.
Of course, there are always improvident shoppers. If you keep a shop, no matter how late you may stay open, there is always somebody who comes and rattles on the latch five minutes after you have closed. It has been said that most shoppers want late closing, and, of course, they do. If you ask them whether they want two posts on a Sunday, they will say that they would like that. If you ask them whether they would like the banks to be open on a Saturday, they would like that—
Several noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Ardwick: We should all like that, but, of course, there is a cost. You cannot judge the cost by the limited experience of a limited number of shops in a limited area; the eventual cost is not there. They may do very well, indeed, simply because the idea is fairly new—I think it has been going on for only three or four years—and they may attract a great deal of custom to themselves. But the moment that this becomes universal—and it will become universal—then I see no way in which just a few shops will open on Sunday. The whole dynamic of the retail trade will insist that most shops are open.
Of course, there is a very great desire on the part of some supermarkets to open on Sunday. It would be wonderful for them. People could come on a Sunday, without traffic and they could load up. It would be very easy for them. But it would be disastrous for every small shopkeeper if that happened. As the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who was very well quoted today by the previous speaker said, this would inevitably add to the cost. Though I may deplore the way in which the Government have, apparently, made their announcement today in another place, I am delighted at the apparent content of it.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those of other noble Lords who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Mackintosh on his maiden speech. I had to leave the Bench once or twice, one reason being that I needed to go down and ask his former headmaster whether he was happy with his pupil's success this afternoon. His headmaster is sitting below the Bar, and I am delighted to say that, like noble Lords, he would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mackintosh.
I am very pleased to be able to support my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I shall be very brief. I put my name down only because I felt that I wanted to be counted, and wanted it to be known that I very much support this Bill which she has brought in today. There are one or two reasons which I should like to give to the House, but they will be short. I was very interested in the MORI poll which, as your Lordships have already heard, showed that two-thirds of the people canvassed were in favour of the Bill. But what was interesting to me was that 70 per cent. of those two-thirds were men. There must be a reason for that, and I presume it is that men who stay late at their work are rarely able to go out shopping.
Not only is the law not understood by either shopkeepers or consumers, but the ridiculous anomalies are making it almost a farce in some places. For instance, in London, where boroughs are coterminous, one side of the street will be part of a borough which enforces, or tries to enforce, the law, and the other side will be in a borough which does not even try. This must, surely, be very unfair. The Conservative Party and, therefore, the Government in power, believe in competition; and the position is very unfair, not only to the shopkeepers but also to the consumers, because the consumers want the benefit of competition as well as freedom of choice. I believe that the time has now come when there should be more flexibility in our laws and in our way of life.
148
There is already some flexibility, but, if it is not backed up by laws, then those people who wish to be more flexible will very often be breaking the law.
One other reason for the Bill is that, undoubtedly, it will create employment. As one or two noble Lords have suggested, nobody will work for seven days, or even for long hours, but more people will be employed. One noble Lord said that prices will inevitably go up, but that is not what has happened in Scotland. Prices have not gone up there. A great deal of notice must be taken of that point.
Families will be able to go out together. I very much believe in family life: in family life through worship at church, in family life through enjoying recreation or shopping together. I was able, some time ago now, to organise fêtes and bazaars in aid of various charities. I always found that those fêtes and bazaars which were open on Sunday afternoons were not only the best attended but also the ones which were supported by the whole family. Those who think that all shops will open late on Sundays are presumably unaware of the old maxim: "Trust the people ". The people should be asked and they should be trusted. I urge the Government not only to give this Bill a Second Reading but to ensure that in the fullness of time it is put safely on the Statute book.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, at the outset of my speech I, too, would like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, on his excellent maiden speech. We welcome him to this House and look forward to his contributions on other subject matter in future.
Whereas so many Bills placed before your Lordships favour restrictions for the individual, this Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, favours freedom of choice. To me it is a breath of fresh air. By removing ineffective, unnecessary and outdated legislation her Bill expresses this very principle. Surely, if there is a demand for Sunday opening hours in 1982 and the retailer is prepared to meet the needs of the local community, he should be able to do so freely and without breaking the law. So I congratulate the noble Baroness on her courage in introducing this Bill and on pursuing a course which I believe to be right at the present time.
It seems to me that noble Lords who oppose this step towards greater freedom envisage vast numbers of shoppers in towns on Sundays seemingly carrying out weekly bulk buying which, in their Lordships' view, could well have been done during existing shop hours. As your Lordships know, the present law affects England and Wales only and does not apply to shops in Scotland, other than to barbers and hairdressers. I make no apology in re-emphasising what the noble Baroness has already said: that we, too, can benefit from the Scottish experience and can see how a different trading pattern has emerged. It clearly shows that while there is a substantial consumer demand for some types of commodities on Sundays, traders have shown that they are quite capable of making up their own minds as to whether it is in their interests to open. Yet there is no evidence that Sunday trading has led to any price rises. The National Consumer Council study found prices in chain stores in Glasgow and Edinburgh

149
identical to their London counterparts. What has happened in Scotland is that a different pattern of trading has grown up in response to local demand. If legal restrictions on late night and Sunday trading were abolished in England and Wales, I believe that we would develop the type of trading that would be best suited to a particular area.
Let me now turn to the main body of opposition to the amendment of the law—the shopworkers' union, USDAW, which has always opposed the Sunday opening of shops. I fully expected an outburst of disapproval from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Fallow-field, and I was not to be disappointed. I would remind the noble Lord of the results of the poll mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. The poll was conducted by the shopworkers' union in conjunction with the staff of the Co-op and the House of Fraser. The staff were not compelled to work on Sundays. In both organisations, the shopworkers voted overwhelmingly in favour of Sunday opening, which proves that when individual shopworkers are given the choice they find the option of working on Sundays attractive. Fears that USDAW members would be exploited to work on Sundays against their will are therefore not justified.
There are, of course, always religious objections. But there is no intention to force anyone to shop on Sundays or to open on Sundays if it is against their religious beliefs to do so. However, we do live in a society with a multitude of religious beliefs, and it is not fair that those who wish, perfectly properly, to keep Sunday as a day of rest for religious reasons, should prevent those who wish to trade on Sundays or shop on Sundays from doing so. There will always be people ready to find excuses for not attending a place of worship. Those who have a genuine desire will do so. Surely the value of worship should not be judged merely by the numbers participating but rather by the depth and quality of faith of those who do.
Personally, I was delighted that both the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, should pick on garden centres as an example of a place where families like to shop together on Sundays—first, because as an owner and full-time working director of a large garden centre I work every other Sunday and, second, because a Private Member's Bill relating to garden centres being allowed to trade on Sundays, introduced by my right honourable friend the Member for Stratford-upon-Avon, will receive its Second Reading in another place on Friday. That makes this evening's ministerial announcement in another place even more disgraceful.
In March 1979, when the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill reached the Committee stage, I attempted to move an amendment which, in effect, would have allowed garden centres to open on Sundays without restriction. The spirit of this amendment was well received by your Lordships but the Bill, as noble Lords may remember, ran out of time. The garden centre trade is an example of a service offered to the public at weekends, which is the time when it is most wanted, and garden centres in England and Wales in many cases have had to break an unenforceable law. The trade is suffering from some of the worst winter conditions ever recorded. Not only have sales been practically non-existent but a great deal of nursery stock has not survived the recent spells of
150
intense cold. The survival of our trade is not aided by the stupid and trivial anomalies of Sunday trading.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has already stolen my thunder. We may sell a tree but not the spade to dig the hole in which to plant it. We may sell a shrub but not the peat nor the bonemeal essential to its growth. We may sell a rose but not the pesticides or fungicides essential to its health. We may sell a house plant but not the decorative pot in which to display it. The removal of the anomalies which exist in Sunday trading is of paramount importance to the horticultural trade. Equally, the importance of offering a weekend service to the family is fully recognised by the staff working in garden centres. They recognise that the maintenance and daily care in horticulture, as with livestock for farmers, must continue at weekends. Therefore, in their contracts of work they already accept a staggered five-day week, with an option to earn overtime according to their circumstances.
In conclusion, I believe that a Bill made any more moderate will merely substitute one set of anomalies for another. I do not believe that it is right to dictate when shops open or close, nor do I think that it is right that shoppers should be told when to do their shopping. As my noble friend Lady Trumpington has indicated, she is not advocating the introduction of a compulsory seven-day week opening for shops, nor a seven-day week for shopworkers. She is asking that the customer be free to choose the most convenient shopping hours, and that the shopkeeper be free to open at times suitable for the locality of his trade. I fully support her Bill.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, other speakers in this debate have been so unanimous and anxious to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, on his maiden speech that I am all the more sorry that I missed it. I do apologise to him. I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber during the short period which included his speech, but I look forward to the opportunity of hearing him and, I hope, of congratulating him on a future occasion.
It is almost every day that we in Parliament are confronted with a different and difficult aspect of the overall economic conundrum with which we are constantly wrestling. I am bold enough to suggest that there is a connecting thread running through them all. That is that we are perpetually seeking a fair balance between the interests of the producers of the goods and services on the one hand and the consumers of those things on the other. I suggest that that same broad issue is at stake in our consideration of the Bill now before the House which has been introduced by the noble Baroness.
Clearly she and many other speakers believe that the consumer is disadvantaged by the existing state of the law. On the other hand, it is clear that my noble friend Lord Allen of Fallowfield and my noble friend Lord Ardwick believe that any root and branch change in the shops law, such as is proposed by the noble Baroness, contains real dangers to the working conditions and standards of those who work in retail distribution. Bearing in mind, as my noble friend Lord Ardwick said, the long struggles in the history of

151
trade unionism in retailing, I suggest that we do well to pause before we thrust aside, as some other noble Lords have thrust aside, the point of view that is represented in your Lordships' House by Lord Allen of Fallowfield.
On the other hand, it is clear that many parts of the case that has been put forward in support of the Bill are impressive. The part of the speech by the noble Baroness, and particularly the part of the speech which she made last year in the short debate, which have impressed me most have been her description of the anomalies that abound in the present situation, and of course they are ridiculous; no one disputes that. It is clear, therefore, in my view, that there is a case that the shops Acts need to be revised. But I am opposed to this Bill because I do not believe that these shops Acts should be swept aside, as in practice they will be be swept aside by the sweeping proposals contained in this Bill. It is my belief that sweeping changes of this kind in any area of legislation, though they can be attractive in their simplicity, as the noble Baroness's Bill is, often create more anomalies by their very sweeping nature and their very simplicity than they seek to cure. My noble friend Lord Jacques pointed in drafting terms to some of the anomalies which would be created. Others have said, "Well, they can be taken care of in Committee", and that of course is true. But, even so, I believe that the situation in retailing that we confront is so complex, and there are so many different interests and points of view to be considered, that any approach based upon the noble Baroness's Bill will probably cause as many problems as it seeks to remove.
My noble friend Lady Phillips, who spoke early in the debate, congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on what she called the "whole hog" approach of this Bill, and believed that was a better approach than has been taken by the many—some say a dozen; some say 20—various Private Members' Bills which over the years have been brought in to deal with this situation. I do not believe that either the whole hog approach or the piecemeal approach is the correct approach in this connection. What I favour rather is the approach that has been suggested by the Retail Consortium which was described by my noble friend Lord Jacques. That is that this whole question of the shop Acts is of sufficient importance and sufficient complexity to require to be examined carefully by Government inquiry, and that there should be produced a report which is a balanced and considered report which takes into account all the various points of view, and they are many and varied, that have been expressed in the debate so far. Then, we would have a proper basis for legislating in a constructive and responsible way. I do not believe that that constructive and responsible approach is contained in this present Bill. It is for those reasons that I believe that this Bill is ill-advised and should not be accepted by your Lordships.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on the admirable way in which she presented her Bill. She made out an overwhelmingly convincing case for it, particularly when citing the Scottish experience. Pre
152
dictably we have heard siren voices urging us to hasten slowly. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, told us that the Retail Consortium were against the Bill. What an unadventurous lot they must be compared to their Scottish cousins—traders who are none too keen on trading. Both Lord Jacques and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Fallowfield, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Oram, just now, suggested instead a Royal Commission or departmental inquiries, consultative documents and the like. These, of course, are well-known methods of postponing difficult decisions indefinitely. One only has to think of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, which so many years ago made so many constructive suggestions and recommendations for the reform of the licensing laws: all that work to no avail.
My noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge was worried that Sunday would become a day like every other day. Sunday is not like any other day in Scotland, nor is Sunday like every other day in those many Continental countries where shops are free to open when they like. As for the traditional English Sunday, the traditional English Sunday will be preserved, in waterglass as it were, only to the extent that there is a genuine popular will for its conservation. If that will is absent, no amount of Government legislation will prevent change. Government can preserve the outward form, but not the content.
In a free society I think it is axiomatic that individuals should be permitted to buy and to sell when and where they will—so long as third parties are not harmed thereby. I do not think that opponents of the Bill have made out any convincing case in support of their contention that people will be harmed. A few will be irritated no doubt, but that is different, and these few will be greatly outnumbered by the many who will benefit from the greater opportunity and freedom that this Bill affords. I urge noble Lords to support the noble Baroness in the Division Lobby.
7 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I would like to commence by congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, on his maiden speech although I, as one of the dental members here, have, of course, been given great additional material as to why I would want other items to be sold on a Sunday rather than just confectionery. I wish to support the Bill most strongly because of the direct personal experience that I have had living in Bayswater in London. I moved recently, but I lived there and brought my children up there over many years. This was the area in which the very first department store in London opened its doors—Whiteleys was world famous and historic.
About 18 months ago Whiteleys applied for permission to open on Sundays and, of course, the permission was, quite correctly, refused; it would have been against the law to permit it. Whiteleys said that this was their one hope of remaining viable and continuing in business. Towards the end of last year Whiteleys closed its doors. If you go past that store now you see a very sad, boarded up building, and you realise that all those people who used to work there would have much preferred it to have the right to remain open on Sunday than to find themselves unemployed

153
today. Also, all the other small shops in Queensway are finding that they are badly affected by the loss of Whiteleys. People coming from the big department store would pop in and buy bread in the local bread shop. I am not speaking only about Sundays; I am speaking about every trading day of the week. If one big shop, or small shop, closes in an area the effect rubs off on the others.
However, Bayswater has become very much a Sunday trading area. You can buy your groceries there until 11 o'clock at night and, I believe now, until one or two any morning and there is no differentiation as regards Sundays. So what I think is so wrong about this is that the most reputable and respectable shop there was forced to close because it was abiding by the law. However, all the other shops are doing very well and working whatever hours they like and there is no enforcement whatever of the restrictions that should apply.
People do not realise when they say that consumers might be disadvantaged by no Sunday opening, that there is Sunday opening now pretty well over the whole of London. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, talk about the items that you could or could not buy in a garden centre. I have seen all those things sold in every garden centre that I have been to. There is no difficulty about getting them which means that this law is a nonsense. Even now the people who are the greatest losers, and will be more so as time goes by, are those in the shop-working unions who will find that other people are taking their business away, and sooner or later their own jobs will go. Whiteleys was perhaps the first outstanding example, but it is certainly one worth drawing to your Lordships' attention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned in her speech that if this Bill was passed she thought that it would come into force rather too quickly. I should like to take up that point because the action that was needed to save a shop such as Whiteleys was needed very rapidly; there was no time for a long period to elapse before the law changed. I understand that Woolworths in that same street is now facing a court action for having opened on one Sunday. Woolworths is being prosecuted and made as the example in the street. Yet again, Woolworths has a good reputation and must have been pushed to extremes to have turned around and opened on a Sunday. Yet it did so at the end of last year.
Many speakers have asked: "Is there to be no limit on Sundays?" It is more important to appreciate that the whole matter will be self-limiting. I do not for one moment think that all these shops will be open on Sunday. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Fallowfield, who mentioned that all the big stores would be obliged to open. Let us consider the present Saturday pattern in London. John Lewis will not open on Saturday afternoon, and yet they are doing just as well as any other shop. They still work the hours that suit them. Because there is six days shopping they do not open for six days. So why should they suddenly go to seven days? I do not think that there is any proof in that point at all.
I respect the view of the right reverend Prelate that he would be concerned about the church-going pattern, and I also respect the other Sunday observance view
154
that was put forward. But while I am someone who goes to church every week, regularly, yet I strongly support the right to buy things on Sunday. In fact in many communities it is quite a practice now for people to go to church and then to go on to the local shop, or to go to a local shop and then go on to church. It is happening now. As regards country areas, the small church which is my parish church when I go to the country has a weekly collection of £3·60. That does not mean that it is being very strongly supported in church-going terms. If it had a few shops near it then some people might come to the shops and go to the church as well. One just cannot tell.
Repeatedly the point has been made that it will be hard on the women to have shops open on Sunday because women are the shopworkers. Evidently people are not very well informed on the fact that women are the ones who want to have part-time work and flexible hours. These are the very people who would be able to earn a small living for themselves, and frequently, if families have young children, they would rely upon the father to be there taking a turn with the children while the mother was out. I think that perhaps it is not appreciated here that this is one of the changing patterns in life now; child care has become very much a matter for both parents and not for just one. If the mother wishes to spend a great deal of time with the children it may suit her ideally to have a small-hour part-time job. We want to see a greater increase in part-time employment for both men and women.
I was interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, that more men than women favour the change. I found that most surprising. But I do agree with the noble Lord most emphatically when he said that he hopes that the Home Office will act before a very large number of people take the law into their own hands. I consider that situation has already been reached in London, and it may well have been reached in many other parts of the country.
Certainly four speakers have been very much opposed to this Bill. Those four speakers have all brought out the point of this great discussion and meeting that should take place with the Government—a tripartite meeting. We have all heard it. But I should like to ask all those speakers who have made that point whether they have made the same point on the last 12 occasions that a Bill has been brought forward, or is this a new thing? If it is a new thing coming up, surely it should have come up years ago? It just means that they have been that slow and that far behind the times in thinking of what people really want.
I do not intend to speak for much longer because it is almost the end of the time which I allotted myself and I am the last Back-Bench speaker. Moreover, I am sure that everyone would be happy to have this debate summed up. It has been a very good debate and throughout most points have been made very well. I would again emphasise only the fact that this Bill would not force people to open on Sundays. There is a great tendency in this House for people to believe that any change in the law automatically obliges you to do something. That came over to me very clearly when I was asked whether I was for shooting curlews and redshanks. I really believed at one moment that the vote was on whether we were demanding that people shot them rather than whether we were just going to permit it. It

155
is rather the same with the Shops Bill. Everyone who has adopted this very anti attitude today has done so on the basis of, "Who wants to force every poor shopkeeper to be open on Sunday"?
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting. Nobody was saying that they would be forced to open on Sundays. Nobody was forcing them. There is a simple law of competition, which I am sure noble Lords and Baronesses on the other side of the House understand very well, and it is that which obliges people to open when they would not otherwise wish to open. It is not the law but the freedom that the law gives for free competition, and that obliges many, many shopkeepers to participate who would otherwise not wish to do so.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for his remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, who spoke earlier, said that all large shops will open on the basis that the noble Lord has suggested—namely, that they would simply be forced to do so on a competitive basis. I think that this point has been answered repeatedly. I have just answered it myself in terms of the fact that the John Lewis Partnership do not open on Saturday afternoons. So I think that it is quite untrue to think that they would all open. Even now, although there is six-day opening in the West-end of London, not every shop is open six days a week. If one looks at the shopping pattern on Saturdays one will see that not all shops are open. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the point made by the noble Lord that people would feel obliged to open because competition would insist that they did so.
It is time that the Government looked at this. I do not think that it would affect the pattern of family life; nor would it affect religious observance. In fact, it might enhance those things. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, used the phrase "If you want to go bankrupt, open when you choose". I do not think that many small shopkeepers would agree with that. The point that was made was that people said, "If you are a small shopkeeper, you can hope that some of that business that you would not get in other hours would come to you during different hours, perhaps Sundays". That is always very important. I found delightful his phrase "always improvident shoppers"; I think that that is true. No matter what hours you are open, there will always be someone whom you cannot satisfy. But the bulk of people would like the freedom of shopping when the shops are open, and the shopkeepers would like the right to open their shops within the law, instead of having to flout the law, as they do today. I hope that this Bill is passed.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her explanation of the Bill—a measure which I would suggest is of great importance for its effect and which, if passed, would give, as she says, freedom to shops to open at such time as they think fit, repealing, as it would, certain parts of the
156
Shops Act 1950 which, of course, would have a significant effect on present living standards.
As my noble friend Lord Allen of Fallowfield has said, and, indeed, as others have said, there have been many attempts to review and change the law in respect of trading, both during the week and on Sundays, but without success for those who have sought to reform measures which, as we know, and as various noble Lords have said, have a great deal of illogicality. So we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her initiative in this way and for affording us the opportunity of debating these issues.
I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, on his maiden speech. He certainly showed a specialist interest and a knowledge which I am sure will be of great help and assistance to your Lordships' House in the future. This is a Private Member's Bill and I am sure that my noble friends will carefully weigh the merits and the disadvantages of the Bill, and come to their own conclusions with a free vote. It may be consistent for me, seeking impartiality, to abstain if necessary on this occasion. But for my part, as spokesman for the Opposition, I shall seek to assess the pros and cons which I think ought to be taken into account, although I suspect that noble Lords will already have their own priorities.
As has already been said, Shops Acts legislation goes back a long way and the Act which the Bill would amend or repeal goes back over 30 years, during which time, of course, things have changed considerably. The pattern of life, customs and habits have also changed. So legislation controlling Sunday trading goes back as far as the Fairs and Markets Acts, 1448, and the 1950 Act consolidated measures, including those of 1912 and 1936. However, there have been more recent reviews as evidenced by the early closing legislation of 1965.
I think it is important on this occasion that we know what changes are likely to come about if the Bill gets a Second Reading and passes later stages. As the noble Baroness has stressed, provisions concerning general closing, early closing and Sunday trading already in legislation would be eliminated, leaving only provisions relating to the statutory half-day, working hours for young people and Sunday employment. I think that these are detailed in Part II of the 1950 measure. Indeed, Part II of the Act deals with conditions of employment and they would not be repealed. I think that this is important.
It is also important to question the value and, indeed, the workability of the present legislation if other parts of the 1950 Act are repealed, and whether this is the best way of making a comprehensive review. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, questioned whether this was the way to do the job which has to be done. At this stage we may have borne in mind certain aspects which may already have made us decide whether to accept or reject the Bill. I suggest that we should consider a number of issues before coming to a conclusion. There are many arguments, and some have been mentioned here today more than others. They include the needs of the consumer and the customer and, of course, that is the raison d'être for trading: to satisfy the needs of the public.

157
However, there is much more to it than that, for customers come in different forms, including holiday-makers both from home and abroad. Those who serve in shops and in commerce include not only the man and woman behind the counter, but also other trades and occupations who have to supply the services behind the worker who is behind the counter. Without making a Committee stage speech, I think it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could elucidate some of the definitions in the 1950 Act, because it mentions that:
"'Shop' includes any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on;
"'Shop assistant' means any person wholly or mainly employed in a shop in connection with the serving of customers or the receipt of orders or the despatch of goods ".
There are other definitions which need clarification, because it seems that we are not only amending the Shops Act 1950, the Shops (Airports) Act and the legislation affecting early closing, but we shall also affect many other categories of employment at the same time. These may well come within the definitions mentioned here. For instance, I wonder whether public houses will be included in this kind of measure, which would, of course, involve other forms of legislation.
The National Consumer Council—and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, spoke on behalf of it today—a national body representing consumers, supported a Bill seeking to amend Sunday trading laws which came before the House in 1979. The NCC said that that Bill was a useful step forward in the liberalising of shop hours and shop laws. The NCC naturally criticises ineffective and unnecessary legislation, and laws flouted and not enforceable. It would be hard to defend present laws which are illogical and need changing.
I presume that the Bill that we are now discussing would be a much more extensive Bill than the provisions of the 1979 measure, which came before us a couple of years ago. It would make everything available for sale on Sundays—so that all forms of food and drink for human consumption could be sold on Sunday and also other goods, including, I presume, furniture, carpets, domestic appliances and clothing; and transactions such as those of the Post Office and banks and, indeed, many other services. I am wondering whether the House is aware that many of these other services would have to supply the needs of the shops if they are to have longer hours of opening and be open all day on Sunday as well. Indeed, the 1979 Bill, which did not get very far in your Lordships' House, had schedules which restricted goods and services available on Sundays, whereas this very brief and commendably simple Bill which we are now discussing has no restrictions whatever.
In the National Consumer Council's survey the question was asked as to what other businesses should also stay open if shops could stay open later. Among the top of the list were banks (73 per cent.), post offices (52 per cent.), hairdressers (27 per cent.), followed by cafes, libraries, building societies, repair shops, dry cleaners and others. I wonder whether noble Lords are aware of the consequences if this Bill goes through unamended.
There is another aspect which is of some importance and which has not had a great deal of mention today,
158
and that includes tourism. I think we can appreciate the needs of those visiting Britain, and I believe they number about 12 million a year. The Bill would repeal those provisions already in the Shops Act 1950 which cater for tourism and it would make the sale of all kinds of goods available to British people and not just tourists, and all the year round in all circumstances. We have to bear in mind that this is one of the reasons for supporting the Bill, in so far as it gives people visiting this country the kind of facilities which they look for and indeed enjoy in other parts of the world. There is a need to some extent for consistency in this way.
I want to be fair to the noble Baroness by trying to take an impartial view, and I would want to help her if I may by posing a number of questions which would be to her advantage when she comes to wind up, and questions which may be in the minds of noble Lords. Several questions arise from the point of view of the employer and the employees in respect of the ending of restrictions on trading times. It would appear that seven-day trading and longer hours each day would lead to higher costs. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, the chairman of the NCC, also had similar fears about price increases if there were longer trading hours. Indeed, of course many shops would have to be competitive and extend their hours to those of their competitors if they were going to get their fair market share.
I wonder also how the high levels of unemployment affect shops opening longer hours and on Sundays, when three million unemployed people in the country have all the time in the week to do their shopping, albeit their spending capacity is sadly reduced in that situation. Accepting, as indeed we must, that the tourist trade needs to be catered for, one wonders in what way tourists would be helped by extending the shop hours now permitted. Would they wish to buy things which are not now available on Sundays from shops, such as furniture, household goods, and so on? If shops opened longer, then those who work in offices would also be affected, as would other businesses, as I indicated a moment ago, because they are all part of the commercial life of the nation. This is not a matter just for USDAW, or for the unions concerned and seeking to protect shop workers, but is for other unions as well. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us whether she has been in touch with the TUC, the CBI and other unions whose interests will be affected by this legislation.
With regard to staffing, the unions and some traders are against any extension of the hours of trading. Sunday opening would bring problems, they say, for those not wishing to work because of religious and other convictions. A conscience provision, or the right given to those who do not wish to work on Sunday not to do so, could result in some form of pressure, or indeed, in these days, even in loss of a job in favour of those with no such inhibitions. I notice that there are no safeguards or restrictions in the Bill as it now stands.
Having a look at some of the pros and cons in some depth, one thinks that in some ways—and it might be so claimed—the arguments are evenly balanced. In favour of the Bill are such arguments as that the present laws are out of date, and I do not think that anyone would disagree there. They are certainly illogical.

159
Few can deny that. They certainly are difficult to enforce. They need review, and the question must be, as several noble Lords have posed it, is this the Bill we want, and is this the way to do it? The needs of the tourists are important if we are to encourage visitors from abroad and to give them the facilities which they have elsewhere. We cannot of course ignore the considerable benefit we derive from their being with us, and we have a duty to ensure that we accommodate their needs so far as possible. I am wondering whether any substantial changes are necessary in order to bring that about.
The other arguments—and some of them may be questionable—against the Bill are, as has been pointed out to us, that USDAW, with its 440,000 members, and other trade unions representing workers are opposed to relaxation in hours of work. But I noticed that my noble friend Lord Jacques has suggested a compromise which I thought got a ready response from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, with regard to hours of work in the evenings and also the hours of work on Sunday. One wonders sometimes whether the trend towards longer hours is justified in a measure of this sort when, generally speaking, the country is suggesting that we have a shorter working life, that we have a shorter working week, and so on. The opponents of the Bill claim that working longer working days and a seven-day week would not result in higher sales, for of course there is a ceiling on the total amount which can be sold.
I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Allen of Fallowfield, and indeed others, have claimed that the trade employs a high level of female labour and that family and domestic responsibilities will suffer. In the retail trade it is claimed that nearly half the total of women employed are married. These are factors of domestic consequence. Regardless of those aspects of legislation protecting working conditions and not repealed by the Bill, it is claimed that longer hours would quite possibly lead to lower standards of work.
On the aspects of cost, some claim that higher costs would follow longer opening. The retail trade employs people in what I believe is the second largest industry in Britain, and one of the biggest users of energy. Therefore, it seems clear that heating and lighting costs would increase with premises being opened longer, when there was a totality of goods which could be sold in a shorter period at lower costs of energy and manpower. If shopworkers have to work longer hours, or be rewarded for working unsocial hours, then presumably overtime rates would apply. If staff were not rewarded for spreading their labour and working time over longer days and a seven-day week, then they would feel at a disadvantage and there would be discontent. If we say, as has been stressed on several occasions, that this legislation does not mean that shops have to open, or that workers have to work on a Sunday if they do not wish, then I think most people would appreciate that in these situations the traders and their employees really have no choice.
In conclusion, although we may all be influenced to some extent by certain factors, I think noble Lords would agree that it is the opinion we come to after taking all the factors into account which really matters.
160
It is not easy because of course some factors matter much more than others. The Bill could have a significant effect on our lives. There will be no limit to the hours of opening of shops and business premises, and I believe there is some doubt as to how many other occupations and trades would be involved in supplying the shopping area. The Bill really has little to say about these aspects and any other safeguards involved.
I suppose one could probably cynically summarise the misgivings of some noble Lords as declaring that the freedom to be with one's family on a Sunday is a more precious freedom than the right of the public to buy their bedding and purchase other goods on a Sunday, when of course these basic human rights could be satisfied on other days in the week. I believe that there is a case for a review of the legislation, and I believe that the noble Baroness has made an important contribution in bringing forward this Bill and giving us the opportunity to debate yet again some of these matters which are long overdue for debate and decision, and not least because we live in a rapidly changing society. There are other aspects, too, which are not directly concerned with the measure at this time, but they include the very difficult and important aspect of Sunday entertainment, which was the subject of the Crathorne Report of some years ago. One wonders whether this is not the time for the Government to initiate another, wider, look at the area of shops legislation having regard to the changes in shopping and trading patterns and the use of leisure, with a special look not only at working or opening hours but also at the working conditions of those affected.
The march of science and technology—the microchip and so on—are having a considerable effect on present and future work and leisure patterns and many changes will follow, with many people having much more time for shopping and other pursuits during the week, or alternatively wanting extended hours for shopping and leisure. And given some of the advances of science—deep freezes and other things by which food and other commodities can be kept—there may appear to be less need for a longer time to purchase.
Certain aspects which have been mentioned are of importance regarding the observance of Sunday, and it is clear that many of our rules are framed to protect those who wish to keep Sunday as a day apart from the working week, and it is not only of course just a matter of Sunday observance. As a churchman, I believe there was never a time when people were more anxious to have regard to spiritual, moral and other values. I believe too that most people would not wish one week to follow another unending with no natural break.
The pressures of life, even for those who have no job, are such that a break is vital to give people and their families a chance to stop, to cease their labours and to be together, and that point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and other noble Lords. So, on the one hand, in our changing society there will be need for extended facilities for shopping and leisure activities spread throughout the week, and, on the other, it is essential that we have regard not only to our own personal needs but to those who have to cater for our needs, and their wellbeing and that of their families is also important.
Our society has undergone many changes in recent years in patterns of living and many more can be ex-

161
pected. The main question I would want to have answered concerns not only this Bill but those areas it would affect, including the use of Sundays or weekends and the effect on people and family life, and the question is whether this is really the way to do it. In my view, the opportunity enables us to say that there is need for review. Either way, the British way of life as we have known it, and as it has evolved, will go on changing and, as I say, this measure has given us a welcome opportunity to take a look at the whole issue. I hope the Government will respond to the call of various noble Lords in that direction. Finally, I repeat how grateful we are to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for giving us the opportunity of looking at this urgent and important issue.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before commenting on behalf of the Government on my noble friend's Bill, I wish to refer to the reply to a Parliamentary Question which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made today in another place. For the last 18 months or so the Home Office has been conducting a review of the restrictions which are imposed by shops legislation. The regrettable conclusion we have drawn from that review, and from an analysis of conflicting views, is that there is not yet a sufficient basis of agreement between the various interests concerned for the Government to seek to introduce shops legislation now, though we are aware of the mounting pressure for reform.
That is really, in essence, what is in my right honourable friend's Statement—that and nothing more—except that there is an addition; namely, that my right honourable friend is aware that my noble friend Lady Trumpington has the Second Reading of her Bill today and the Government, the Statement says, can find no ground of principle for opposing the Bill.
I must apologise for any disrespect to your Lordships' House because obviously I knew that the reply was to be made and I am responsible to this House. But as the Government are responsible to both Houses, and as an undertaking had been given on more than one occasion to announce the conclusion of the review to another place, it was thought that it would be courteous to both Houses to make a Government Statement in both Houses as nearly simultaneously as possible.
As your Lordships will realise, something went wrong. It was assumed that I would be speaking near to the start of this debate, which would have achieved Statements near to the start of business in both Houses, whereas—as your Lordships would have been the first to have told me—it is not my business to speak near to the start of a debate on a Private Member's Bill, but to sit and listen to what others have to say and to speak very near to the end. Again, I apologise for not making that fact clear to those who were concerned and for, sadly, reaching a position which, I know, has annoyed your Lordships and which was meant to be dealing correctly with both Houses.
I wish to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Mackintosh on his maiden speech. It was to be expected that, with his family connections, my noble friend would wish to speak in a debate of this kind. Certainly he got off to a much better start with
162
his speech than I achieved with mine! He showed a really excellent grasp of all the main issues. He presented them clearly and persuasively and, speaking near the end of this quite long debate, I am sure it is the sense of the House that we all wish him to return to take part in our debates on future occasions.
I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington for her clear and concise description of the Bill's intentions. My noble friend is to be congratulated on her determination to solve a problem which a great many members of the general public wish to see solved. However, there is a real problem in how to move from the present legal provisions which create anomalies and which do not seem to correspond to modern patterns of living, and that problem is clearly illustrated by the history of previous attempts to change the law, and I will briefly refer to them.
From the 15th century there has been statute law about Sunday trading. But the law relating to trading on weekdays, together with many of the other provisions in the Shops Act 1950, is a product of the 19th century designed to provide shorter working hours for shop staff. But the real step in the story which affects us today—and perhaps why we are debating my noble friend's Bill—was the Shops (Sunday Trading Restrictions) Act 1936. Your Lordships will remember that the aim of that Act was to set limits to the considerable increase in Sunday trading and, within those limits, to make allowances for custom, to avoid hardship to poor people and to provide exemptions for articles which at that time were reckoned to be necessary.
The main points of difficulty—many of your Lordships will remember this much better than I do—in securing agreement for that measure proved, not surprisingly, to be the scope of provision required for people like street traders, and indeed Jewish people, who wanted to trade on Sundays for particular reasons; the special treatment of, for example, seaside resorts and the extended range of articles which were regarded to be necessary under prevailing social conditions. The debates showed general agreement that the object should not simply be to secure one day's rest in seven, but primarily to keep the character of Sunday, both for traders and consumers, distinct from ordinary working days.
The Act did not, however, extend to Scotland, and almost from the moment that Act came into force it became clear from its practical operation and judicial decisions that it contained many anomalies, to which my noble friend Lady Trumpington and many others have referred (actually with some restraint) in this debate.
By the end of the Second World War it was clear (was it not?) that the situation had become so unsatisfactory that a committee under Sir Ernest Gowers was appointed to examine the operation of the shops legislation is relation to closing hours. I think it worthwhile to mention briefly the committee's conclusions. First, while the Gowers Committee affirmed that the provisions for compulsory evening and halfday closing had been of great benefit in protecting the shop worker from exploitation, the committee said that the moment was approaching—and this was written 35 years ago—when it would have done all it could for the shop staff and it was now the public's turn for a little

163
consideration. Secondly, Gowers found, in 1947, that there were too many exemptions in the law, and, lastly, that because the law was contained in so many statutes it was obscure and complicated.
As a preliminary step the Government of the day consolidated the Acts of 1912 and 1936 in the Shops Act 1950. Then in 1956 a Government Bill to give effect, broadly speaking, to the Gowers' recommendations was introduced into your Lordships' House, where it excited much opposition from supporters of the retail trade and the shopworkers' unions. My noble friend Lord Mancroft—who I do not think has been able to be here today—mentioned that Bill in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lady Trumpington on 20th May last year, and explained the difficulties that he experienced on behalf of the Government in 1956 in piloting the Bill through your Lordships' House. When the Bill reached another place the Home Secretary of the day (the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, as he now is) had to announce that it would not be possible to proceed with it in that Session.
I think it fair to say that there was one more government attempt at reform, in 1965, when the Home Department circulated proposals based this time on consultations with interested bodies and on the recommendations of the departmental committee on the law of Sunday observance, which had been chaired by the late Lord Crathorne. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, in his speech this afternoon thought that the Crathorne Report might now be a basis for legislation, but I would remind the noble Lord that in 1965 the Government were reluctantly obliged to conclude that there was insufficient consensus to prepare legislation based on those recommendations.
The remainder of the story is very familiar to the House. Three more Bills have been introduced in this House, and four in another place. All have failed to make progress because of the combined opposition of certain representatives of the trade and those speaking on behalf of the shopworkers' unions. Most of those attempts have been modest attempts to iron out some of the more glaring anomalies, particularly in relation to the range of goods which may be sold on Sunday. A significant feature of the debates has been that all concerned have admitted readily that the law is totally inadequate and should be changed. But any constructive solutions have never commanded agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Fallowfield, called for an exhaustive Government inquiry. I am sorry to do so in his absence, but I must point out that the facts are known, and what we need is not more information, but a greater measure of agreement. In the past debates successive Administrations have been criticised for having failed to give a lead in finding a solution to this perennial problem, and I thought that this afternoon I caught just a hint of that criticism repeated once again. The Home Office has completed the review to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. The review was undertaken primarily to try to ascertain whether, in the light of past unsuccessful attempts and present attitudes, there now exists among those concerned a sufficient degree of consensus in which a further attempt at legislation would stand a reasonable chance of success.
Despite the fact that the debate in another place
164
last February on the Bill of my honourable friend Sir Anthony Meyer indicated quite clearly that there has been very little shift in the attitudes of the opponents of change, we have tried hard to analyse the different attitudes which appear to exist at present in relation to this complex subject and to assess their validity. We have been able to identify six broad interest groups, three of which are opposed to change, and three of which are in favour of change. In addition, there are the local authorities who favour amendment, though for rather different reasons. Opposed to change there would appear to be the retail trade, USDAW, and the Lord's Day Observance Society. Their opposition is directed mainly against an extension of Sunday trading for the following reasons. First, it is claimed that any extension of Sunday trading is likely to lead to increased overheads for the retailer and to higher prices for the consumer. Secondly, it is claimed that Sunday trading would be injurious to family and social life Finally, people living in the immediate vicinity of shopping areas would be deprived of one day's relative peace and quiet.
On the other hand, those who are in favour of some change comprise sections of the retail trade, especially proprietors of garden centres and do-it-yourself shops, and other shopkeepers, incidentally, representing, not least, ethnic minorities, as well as consumer interests and the tourist authorities. We have heard the arguments in favour of change put very clearly by my noble friend and others of your Lordships. At this hour of the evening I shall not repeat the arguments, because they have been put so many times and so clearly. They are based on the point that the law does not correspond to changes which have taken place in society, and on the view that shopkeepers who are now opening in contravention of the law should no longer be hounded but should be allowed to serve the public as they think they should. The argument is also put forward that Sunday trading would give many families more, not less, opportunity.
From the point of view of the Home Office, we believe that the final group, the local authorities as a whole, favour change, but for a different reason. Local authorities are responsible for enforcement and find the existing law wholly unsatisfactory in this respect. Therefore their principal concern is to secure a law that is enforceable. To us a minority of authorities appear, in addition, to sympathise with some of the arguments of those who favour change on the merits.
The regrettable conclusion that we drew initially from that analysis of views was that a further Government initiative at this stage would be almost certain to fail. But—all this is most certainly not included in any reply to a parliamentary Question given by my right honourable friend—we have looked again, with the advice of Government economists, at the economic arguments put forward by those who oppose any change in the law and, in particular, at the assertion of the retail trade that in addition to depriving small shopkeepers and their assistants of free time with their families, the extension of Sunday trading was likely to lead to higher prices for consumers.
In considering those arguments we looked at experience in Scotland, where the Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act do not apply. That bore out the

165
conclusions of the recent inquiry conducted by the National Consumer Council; namely, that the current pattern of trading in Scotland is very similar to that of England and Wales, the only difference being that in Scotland it is being carried out within the law. I strongly agree with my noble friend Lady Trumpington that Scottish experience clearly shows that certain types of shops—especially large electrical discount warehouses, which she specifically mentioned, do-it-yourself-shops, and carpet and furniture retailers—find it worthwhile to open on Sundays, especially at peak seasons, such as the last few weeks before Christmas. However, in Scotland the majority of the shops in the multiple chains typical of High Street shopping areas remain closed.
Speaking on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the Home Office, based on what we think we have discovered from our review, that is what we would expect to find in England. In the longer term, we think that shops would open on Sunday only if they found it profitable to do so; that is, only if they were meeting the needs of consumers. Allowing shops to open on Sunday may thus be seen as a bonus in terms of individual freedom for both the consumer and the retailer. For all customers Sunday opening would increase their ability to seek out the best buy and the best service.
If I may push the argument a little further, more choice of course means more competition. The benefits of this increased competition could be significant. In the long term, liberalisation of the shopping hours, so I am advised by economists in the Government, should increase both the efficiency and the quality of retail service. Far from raising prices, therefore, Sunday shopping may well lead to greater competition, more choice for consumers and, therefore, lower prices in the shops. Also, the argument that shopworkers will suffer adversely again does not seem to be borne out by the situation in Scotland; and I must say that I must register my agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that if the Shops Acts were to be repealed in their entirety adequate provision would need to be made to continue to protect working conditions.
My Lords, from this account of our thinking, your Lordships may ask me, "Why have you not in fact introduced a Government Bill?" Very well; I will answer the question. If we thought that there was a good chance of securing a reasonable measure of agreement to reform week-day and Sunday trading laws, we should be prepared to consider—and I have to stress the word "consider"—allocating the resources needed to carry out the processes of consultation with a view to introducing legislation. But the beginning of my speech was aimed to show that we do not believe that this is the case. Having said that, we are certainly glad that my noble friend has introduced this Bill.
Your Lordships may ask me, "What is the use of the Bill, then? What is the value of it?" I think the great use of it is that it has given us on this Second Reading a chance to listen to what people have to say and to consider carefully the views expressed in today's debate. For instance, I listened very carefully, if I may say so on behalf of the Government, to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich had to say, but I think it is worth reflecting that preserving
166
Sunday as a distinctive day does not necessarily mean that there can be no trading at all on Sunday. Indeed, I do not know that I gleaned from the speech of the right reverend Prelate that he believed that in its entirety, either.
The Government do not think that there is anything to fear from a measure of reform. It would certainly be welcomed, we think, by the shopping public, and would rid the statute book of legislation which has become, at best, an object of fun and, at worst, discredited because it is unenforceable.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone particularly put their fingers on the point that, because Parts I, III and IV of the 1950 Act are referred to in Part II in relation to shop-workers' conditions of service and Part II is to be retained, some drafting amendments would need to be made to that Part in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone said that he thought the Government should certainly give my noble friend Lady Trumpington help in drafting if my noble friend felt that she would wish for this. I should like to respond by saying that that is most certainly our intention. If your Lordships accord the Bill a Second Reading, as I hope, I shall discuss with my noble friend how it may suitably be amended in that respect.
My Lords, the Government are seriously concerned at the unsatisfactory state of shop legislation. I therefore genuinely thank my noble friend again for having giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue, which is of major social and commercial importance.
Lord Oram: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, can he say whether the Home Office review to which he has helpfully referred is likely to be published? It strikes me that it would be an extremely useful document for us to see in giving further consideration to this question, whether on the basis of Lady Trumpington's Bill or through some other means.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that when noble Lords have had the opportunity to see the terms of my right honourable friend's reply to a Parliamentary Question it will be seen that the reply is literally confined simply to coming to the conclusion that there is not the possibility, in my right honourable friend's view, for the Government to seek to introduce legislation on this subject at the present time, though we are aware of the mounting pressure for reform. Therefore, I do not think that this review, which was an internal Home Office review, would add anything, even if we had a document to publish, which indeed I do not think we have. This has been a series of thoughts, discussions and consultations, ending up in the statement which has been made in another place and the statement which is embedded in my speech, both of which were supposed to be simultaneous—and for the fact that we did not succeed in achieving that I have already expressed my regret.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer one more question about the central thesis that he has so admirably set out, but still mystifyingly so? He has said that there cannot be Government action on this point because there is not general agree-

167
ment among the parties concerned. This has not been the attitude of the Government on, say, trade union legislation, or on any other matters. Why has it got to be the attitude of the Government on this question?
Lord Belstead: Because, my Lords, there is a long history on this question which leads the Government to believe that to introduce legislation in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Young, would wish us to do at the present time would not be desirable.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, by now I feel a rather battered Baroness. I hope your Lordships will agree that we have enjoyed a long, thorough and stimulating debate. I should like to thank most warmly all those who have taken part; and most particularly I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed by other noble Lords who have commended my noble friend Lord Mackintosh on his elegant and eloquent maiden speech. It was good to hear the voice of youth expressing sensible and well-thought-out convictions.
The hour is late. I have made long and copious notes, but, despite my desire to reply to the queries which have arisen during today's debate, I shall for the time being content myself with the information contained in Hansard from speeches made today. I shall look forward to the Committee stage of my Bill. What else is a Committee stage for except to amend and seek to reach the right amalgam? It was surprising to me to hear Lord Ardwick foretell the demise of small shops, because I have received tremendous support from the National Union of Small Shopkeepers. However, I must wait for another occasion to reply to Lord Bishopston's queries. It would quite frankly be counter-productive of me to detain your Lordships for the time it would take me to do so this evening.
I think, quite honestly, that I had a right to feel bitter concerning the statement which was made this afternoon in another place. I believe that every Member of this House, if faced with such a situation, would have felt the same way. However, what is done is done, and I am grateful for, and of course accept, what my noble friend said without reservation and without any hindsight. I listened to my noble friend with the utmost interest. I look forward to further conversations of a drafting nature with him. We obviously have much in common, and a few differences. I would ask your Lordships to give me a strong vote in favour of my Bill in order to show the Government the strength of feeling, and to make sure that this necessary reform to change the law succeeds. I end by asking this House to give my Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords may I ask the noble Baroness, before she resumes her seat, whether, if today she gets approval of the principle which is contained in her Bill, she will consider remitting it to a Select Committee of this House to take evidence from interested parties with a view to getting some greater agreement on this matter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think it is premature to answer that question.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be read a second time?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL/BRIDGE: ESTIMATED COST
  CHANNEL TUNNEL/BRIDGE: ESTIMATED COST
  KINGSTON LACY HOUSE: PUBLIC ACCESS
  KINGSTON LACY HOUSE: PUBLIC ACCESS
  THE SEVERN BRIDGE: ABNORMAL LOADS
  THE SEVERN BRIDGE: ABNORMAL LOADS
  TORTOISES: IMPORTS INTO UK
  TORTOISES: IMPORTS INTO UK
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD: MALE/FEMALE STAFF RATIO
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD: MALE/FEMALE STAFF RATIO