Sitting of 21 May 1985

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BATH CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [Lords]
LUTON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
PLYMOUTH MARINE EVENTS BASE BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time.
LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL
(By Order) Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Mr. Knox: As the school population has fallen by about 1 million, and as total expenditure on education has risen in real terms since 1978–79, does my hon. Friend agree that these figures show clearly the high priority that the Government are placing on school education? By how much has expenditure per pupil at school risen in real terms since the Government came into office?
  Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation. Expenditure per pupil in real terms has risen steadily since 1979 and is now at its best ever level. Expenditure per primary pupil increased by 17 per cent. and per secondary pupil by 12 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1983–84.
  Mr. James Lamond: How does that compare with expenditure per pupil at Harrow and Eton and such schools?
  Mr. Dunn: I am not in a position to say.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that expenditure per pupil does not tell the whole story? Why does the Inner London education authority spend more on its secondary school pupils than any other education authority when only one in seven get five or more O-levels—only six of the 96 education authorities do worse than that— whereas Surrey, spending about average for shire counties per secondary school pupil, has one in three pupils leaving with five or more O-levels? Does my hon. Friend further agree that parents arid pupils want efficient and effective education, not a mindless demand for more resources?
  Mr. Dunn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the nature, robustness and thrust of her supplementary question. As she rightly says, there is no simple relationship between expenditure and the quality of education. Were that the case, ILEA would be top of the league in all respects.
  Mr. Radice: Is the Secretary of State not planning for cuts in real terms over the next three years, and for cuts in expenditure per pupil? Should the Minister not tell the House that?
  Mr. Dunn: As the hon. Member knows, our plans for current expenditure by local authorities this year are consistent with our commitment to a continuing improvement in educational standards. The plans for education spending by authorities in later years, set out in the 1985 public expenditure White Paper, are provisional. They will be revised later this year after consultation with the local authorities and in the light of circumstances and the prospects then prevailing.
  Mr. Radice: In other words, I am right.
  Mr. Dunn: No.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Expenditure
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was total expenditure on school education in England in 1978–79 and how this compares with expenditure in the most recent year for which figures are available, at constant prices.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Current expenditure on schools by local education authorities in England amounted to £6,708 million in 1978–79 and £6,885 million in 1983–84, the latest year for which firm figures are available. Both figures are at 1983–84 prices.

  Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Leighasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the teachers' pay dispute.
  Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current teachers' pay dispute.
  Mr. Hancockasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made since 2 May to resolve the current teachers' pay dispute.
  Mr. Maudeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' dispute.
  Mr. Holtasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current dispute between teachers and their employers.
  Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the progress of the teachers' pay talks.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): The Burnham committee met on 15 May, when constructive informal exchanges took place between the leaders of the two sides. The independent chairman noted that neither side had committed itself to a particular line or figure. Discussion is to be resumed on 23 May.
  Mr. Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present negotiating machinery does not work adequately? Will he therefore institute urgent reform of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 to ensure that new machinery is devised which will include appraisal of teachers' performance and a restructuring of their salary levels?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I am ready to be convinced, but I have not yet been, that a structural change is necessary. What my hon. Friend wishes for exists to a large extent in Scotland without achieving the purpose he has in mind.
  Mr. Nellist: The Secretary of State is aware that the Conservative party lost control of a large number of shire counties about 10 days ago and that more and more of the local education authorities are now saying that the teachers deserve a decent rate of pay. Will he therefore say that if a better offer should be made, rate capping and other financial restraints will be lifted to enable more money to be found to give a decent rate of pay to the teachers?
  Sir Keith Joseph: As I have said several times before, the answer to that question is no.
  Mr. Hancock: As the Burnham negotiations are continuing to break down, does the Secretary of State not think that it is about time that he personally became involved and took over the negotiations with the teachers? I draw to his attention early-day motion 681. I hope that he will use it as a formula for a settlement of the dispute.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I have seen early-day motion 681, but we must wait and see what happens in Burnham, which meets again on Thursday next.
  Mr. Maude: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if our schools are to provide the kind of education that our children need it is vital that there should be a drastic restructuring of the teaching profession? Is he also aware that it is important to make it clear that should such a restructuring be agreed, money will be made available to finance it?
  Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend knows that I have urged the employers and the teachers to negotiate such a restructuring and that I have said that if the result appears to me to be educationally desirable and financially affordable I shall take it to my colleagues.
  Mr. Holt: In view of my right hon. Friend's disappointing reply, will he say what hope he has for the pupils and teachers at the Endeavour school in Middlesbrough, a school for those with special handicaps, a third tranche of whom will have to suffer inconvenience after the Whitsun holiday unless there is a resolution of the dispute?
  Mr. Skinner: It is not true.
  Mr. Holt: It is true.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I would rather speak in general about the behaviour of those teachers who are disrupting or who are on strike and say that I think they are letting down their profession, seriously damaging the interests of the children and doing great harm to the households of many parents.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Has the Secretary of State fully considered the fact that the morale of teachers is at an all-time low? Does he not appreciate the detrimental effect
  842
  that this can have upon the long-term future of our children? Why does he not provide extra money in order to try to reach an amicable settlement?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I have also borne in mind that in several cases the union leaders have been systematically, in my view, misleading the members of their unions. The teachers' unions have refused to negotiate, to arbitrate or even to discuss the restructuring which the employers have asked them to talk about.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as from today, the National Union of Teachers has called out the teachers in four schools in my constituency, three of them primary schools, and that this has been put forward publicly on the basis that these schools are in the constituency of a former Secretary of State for Education and Science? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that one can have no possible shred of respect for the leadership of a union which attempts to justify' its behaviour upon such a spurious ground? Will he sadly confirm my view that as a body the NUT is becoming the gravest danger to the professional standing of teachers?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I sympathise with the parents and children in my right hon. and learned Friend's constituency, but the behaviour of any union and teacher who damages the children's education is unforgiveable.
  Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that inflation is running at 6· per cent. and rising, that teachers have been offered 4 per cent., that they have lost 30 per cent. and yet they are the most moderate group of people and are struggling for a living wage? Will the Minister make it clear that he has 15 votes on the Burnham committee and that he has used them twice recently to stop a negotiated settlement? Does he accept that that is the reality and that the struggle will go almost indefinitely unless more money is placed on the table to give the teachers a living wage?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Let me agree with one point made by the hon. Gentleman—most teachers are moderate and hardworking and take their job seriously. Let me also tell the House that the votes to officials of the Department were provided during the time of or in the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, which was passed by a Labour Government.
  Mr. Madel: Should not classroom disruption stop at once and both sides make a real effort to get a three-year pay deal which should have within it the beginnings of great rewards for effective teachers?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I very much agree with the general gist of my hon. Friend's question. I wish that the teachers would go back to negotiations, and let us hope that on Thursday they start to do so.
  Mr. Freud: If the Secretary of State wishes the teachers to negotiate, will he at least press his Cabinet colleagues to allow those authorities which overspend their targets not to be penalised?
  Sir Keith Joseph: No, Mr. Speaker, that would be providing further public money, and I have already told those concerned that that is not what the Government intend to do.
  Mr. Haselhurst: In this present difficult situation, does it not need constant re-emphasis that there is a

  843
  prospect of more money if only the teachers and employers can reach agreement on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. The answer is definitely yes.
  Mrx. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State not more than pleased that the NUT has exempted certain authorities from industrial action?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad that any school that would otherwise be disrupted is not disrupted, but I cannot in any way respect the NUT's decision to exempt some authorities and not others. The children are in the charge of teachers who are failing in their responsibilities.
  Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the metropolitan borough of Stockport today no members of the NUT are on strike in the constituency of Demon and Reddish, but that they are on strike in the constituencies of Stockport and Hazel Grove merely because the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has given wholehearted support to the NUT's action whereas I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) refused to do so? Are the pupils not being used as political footballs, and has my right hon. Friend a word to describe that kind of pressure being brought on hon. Members?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I repeat only that I deplore the thoroughly unprofessional behaviour of those teachers' union leaders who are conducting that policy and those teachers who co-operate with them.
  Mr. Radice: Will the Secretary of State veto any Burnham settlement above 4 per cent?
  Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman knows that the veto, which came in at about 1965 when a Labour Government were in office, is not a matter about which I am prepared, or any holder of my office has ever been prepared, to make predictions.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Boyesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will next meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the second year of the youth training scheme.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Officials of the Department and I are in regular contact with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission and his staff about matters of mutual interest, including the proposals to expand and develop the youth training scheme.
  Mr. Boyes: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, will he tell him that if we go in for a second year of the youth training scheme, the Government will be more than doubling in real terms the budget available for training? Is he aware that we are suspicious because the wages of youngsters have been dramatically eroded? Is he further aware that if he does not do that it will appear to us that he is after training on the cheap, or, at worst, that he is interested not in training but only in keeping the unemployment figures down?
  Sir Keith Joseph: While that supplementary question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, I could not possibly accept that
  844
  the young people concerned are being treated in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. They are being given, for the first time, an opportunity for positive training after they leave school if they are not in a job.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the views of the dafties on the Labour Benches, the YTS has been an exceedingly successful scheme, with about 70 per cent. of those taking part getting jobs afterwards, and that an extension to two years would prove an extra benefit?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I confirm that the YTS is a successful scheme, though I am not the Minister to whom detailed questions about exact figures should be addressed.
  Mr. Park: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is already a two-year scheme in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that if the results of introducing a two-year scheme in England prove to be the same as in Northern Ireland—that is, that even at the end of two years no jobs are available — we shall be no further forward? Would it not be wiser for the Government to amend their economic policy so as to secure jobs for these youngsters?
  Sir Keith Joseph: One cannot always read across conditions from Northern Ireland to this country or reciprocally. I only wish that we had in our schools in England the academic results that are achieved in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when representatives of the CBI came to meet the Select Committee on Employment they said that one of their worries was that in the second year of the YTS they might be short of people with teaching skills? In view of the falling morale among teachers because of a lack of promotion prospects, will my right hon. Friend consider making it easier for teachers to enter training rather than teaching?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that that calls for action by me. It is up to the individuals concerned.
  Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that any extension of the YTS will mean genuine training and employment opportunities for young people, instead of it being just another opportunity for some unscrupulous employers to exploit them with slave labour wages, throwing the youngsters back on the dole queue after two years instead of one?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I know enough to know that the hon. Gentleman is grossly distorting the results of the YTS. However, relatively precise questions about the YTS are for my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Baldry: Further to that supplementary question from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Employment invited representatives of the British Youth Council to draw attention to six bad schemes which they alleged existed? That was six weeks ago. To date, we have yet to hear of any bad schemes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that suggests that the allegation that the YTS is exploited is simply a slur by those who seek to attack and undermine this valuable scheme?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Opposition Members who go in for such generalised smears damage the very people whom they purport to want to help.
  Mr. Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread concern lest the second year of the YTS falls more into the hands of the private training agencies than of employers or mode B providers? Is he further aware that the record of those agencies on high quality educational content has not been good? Will he ensure that the Department's team is in there fighting for high educational content in the second year, linked to further education generally?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I am not one who seeks to evade questions, but supplementary questions of that type are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Latham, question No. 5
  Mr. Nellist rose —
  Mr. Speaker: I did not call the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I called the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. Nellist: I am the only one left to put a supplementary on question 4.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may be. Mr. Latham.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on his decision regarding the corporate plan of the Natural Environment Research Council.
  The Parliamentary tinder-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Both the Department and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils have encouraged the research councils to produce corporate plans. Beyond that it is not for my right hon. Friend to make a decision on a corporate plan in the way implied.
  Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the distinguished scientists of the British Geological Survey are concerned that this corporate plan will mean less geology and more administration? Will my hon. Friend set up an independent inquiry to ascertain whether the BGS should leave the research council altogether?
  Mr. Brooke: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, although I cannot go all the way with him on the precise subject of an inquiry. I agree that there is a case for a study into the national needs of geological surveying activities, and I shall ensure that that suggestion is sympathetically considered.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Does the hon. Gentleman understand how important it is for the Government to be seen to support our scientific institutions of international repute? If these institutions fail, we shall lose to our competitors even more of our distinguished scientists than we have lost already.
  Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady that, since 1979, the science budget has increased in real terms by 8 per cent.

  Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of talks on the restructuring of teachers' salaries.
  Sir Keith Joseph: There has been no further progress since the National Union of Teachers led the teachers' panel out of discussions in the Burnham joint structure working party on 5 December.
  Mr. Greenway: Has any progress been made on the means of implementing an appraisal system? If so, how will this be done?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Alas, the teachers' unions have blocked the taxpayers' money that I have set aside for pilot appraisal schemes. I am eager to embark on those schemes as soon as possible. In the meantime, I am convening a conference in the autumn on the subject of appraisal, to which local education authorities and teachers' represen- tatives will certainly be invited.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the teachers are incensed about the issue of pay and restructuring, partly because education spending since the Tory party came to power has been surpassed by the amount spent on defence? The teachers believe that the £4 billion more that is now spent on defence shows that this Government think that education has a low priority. The teachers know also that in 1980, after the Tory party was elected, the Secretary of State doubled his money. Every Tory Minister has made up for all the lost ground and now earns more than £40,000 a year. If Ministers can make up lost ground in pay, the teachers are right to ask, "Why can we not make up for all the ground that has been lost during these Thatcher years?" The other day I read that the bosses made 30 per cent. more money in 1985. Is it any wonder that teachers fight for a better standard of living?
  Sir Keith Joseph: During the past seven to eight years there have been about 15 per cent. fewer children in our schools to be taught. That accounts for the fall in the amount of money available for education. In the case of defence, it sometimes seems that the opponents of this country are ever more numerous.
  Mr. Colvin: With 1 million children affected by strike action this week, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to incorporate a no-strike clause in any future formula which may be agreed for teachers' pay?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful for that constructive suggestion. My representatives play only a limited, although important, part in the negotiations. I am sure that the employers will note that suggestion.
  Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the attitude of the teachers' unions in wholely ignoring the restructuring talks, which offer the best hope of better conditions and salaries for union members, the teachers have made it clear that the purpose of the current action has less to do with pay and more to do with inter-union and internal union rivalries?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned that. It is clear that the teachers' unions are not exactly unanimous among themselves.
  Mr. Flannery: Why does the Secretary of State not admit, rather than conceal the fact, that the teachers are not against restructuring or reassessment? Will he admit that what the teachers oppose is his insistence on tying the two things together in terms of the current wage demand? Is he aware that the teachers want new money on the table because they have lost out in all the years of Conservative Government, but that after they have obtained that

  847
  increase they will willingly discuss what is to happen about restructuring and reassessment? It is not true that the teachers are against that. Tell the truth.
  Sir Keith Joseph: They give the impression of being against any restructuring whatever, but I know that the NUT pamphlet declares its sympathy for appraisal in some context and I am encouraged by that.
  Mrs. Rumbold: As the discussions on restructuring coupled with the current pay dispute have done little if anything to improve the image of the teaching profession among the general public, and as my right hon. Friend shares the ambition of many Members, myself included, of wishing to attract the best possible people into the teaching profession, will he assist by explaining how we are to encourage young people to enter the teaching profession at the present time?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I believe that a restructured profession, with all that that implies, must come sooner or later. I believe that that will make it even more worth while for the kind of people whom my hon. Friend and I wish to see enter the profession.
  Mr. Park: Given the fact, which no one seems to have challenged, that teachers' pay has slipped by about 30 per cent., will the Secretary of State draw on his experience at the Department of Industry and realise that he must sort that out first before going on to deal with restructuring, because until he faces that issue relationships will continue to be atrocious?
  Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Member reminds me of my experience with industry, in which there are virtually no secure jobs. The teachers have almost total security of employment and are thus much envied by many people. I believe that hankering back to comparability would bring back the rocketing inflation and unemployment which it brought to this country in the past.
  Mr. Hind: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many teachers taking industrial action are doing so out of sheer frustration and that it is hurting them as much as it hurts the children whom they teach? Bearing that in mind, will my right hon. Friend do all that he possibly can to try to solve the teachers' pay dispute in the long term as well as the short term? Will he also consider the scrapping of Burnham and the merging of two committees, one dealing with terms and conditions and the other dealing with pay?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I agree that many teachers must be striking or disrupting with heavy hearts and I respect the large number of teachers and some unions who are unwilling to disrupt at all, but I must correct the impression given by my hon. Friend. The teachers are using methods of disruption which are virtually costless to themselves but very costly to the children.
  Mr. Freud: Having given conflicting replies to me and to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), and having confused his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), will the Secretary of State now tell us what sort of appraisal he has in mind, if he has anything in mind at all?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I have in mind a system or systems to be worked out with the employers and the teachers themselves. There is no question of imposing one particular, precise drill At is important that the employers and the teachers, with the Department, should formulate
  848
  methods of appraisal that will be fair and satisfactory. The House should realise that appraisal already takes place informally all the time—for instance, when promotions are offered. I am merely asking that there should be a formal procedure.
  Mr. Dickens: Although, by and large, the majority of teachers do a good and dedicated job for their pupils, is it not true that many parents are aware that there are some thoroughly bad teachers? If we have to reduce the number of teachers to match the falling birth rate, should we not make sure that we lose the very bad teachers? That can be achieved only through an appraisal system in which the teachers themselves take part. Let us lose the bad teachers and keep the good ones.
  Sir Keith Joseph: The purpose of appraisal is far more constructive even than that. It is to offer in-service training and career development opportunities for all teachers.
  Dr. Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important that appraisal should be carried out by independent people, so that both teachers and employers feel that it is entirely independent?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I think that I can agree with my hon. Friend in principle, to the extent that the appraisal should be conducted by a method respected by all concerned. I am not prepared at this stage to say that it should be carried out by independent people.

  Primary Education
  Mr. Roweasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children entered primary education in the latest year for which figures are available who were unable to speak English.
  Mr. Dunn: This information is not held by the Department.
  Mr. Rowe: As we know that a considerable number of children enter primary education without a command of English, is my hon. Friend content with the present arrangements for the recruitment, training and employ-ment of teachers who are members of the minority groups from which a number of those children come, and who are capable of speaking in the languages that the children use when they start school?
  Mr. Dunn: The Department is concerned about that point. However, we must never reduce standards lo admit teachers with certain ethnic backgrounds. To do so would be unfair to them and to the children whom they aim to serve.
  Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister give praise to education authorities such as Brent which, with a large influx of Gujarati children, was able to set up language laboratories and overcome the difficulty in that way? Will the Minister ensure that rate capping will not prevent youngsters entering primary school from learning English?
  Mr. Dunn: I welcome good practice wherever it exists. Rate capping and the problems caused by it are matters for the local authority.

  Swann Report (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations have been instigated by his Department following the publication of the Swann report on ethnic minority education.
  Mr. Dunn: The Department is currently exploring with the education service and the ethnic minorities the collection of ethnically based statistics, and will be seeking views shortly on how best to increase the proportion of ethnic minority teachers. Other consultations will follow in due course.
  Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will continue to be a strong emphasis on religious education in our schools?
  Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir. We have made it plain on many occasions that we are committed to upholding the provisions of the Education Act 1944 relating to religious education in schools and, of course, morning assembly.
  Mr. Greenway: I recently visited two weekend schools where the culture, religion and language of the ethnic minority concerned are taught out of school time. Is that not a most commendable practice?
  Mr. Dunn: Entirely so. Much can be done within the maintained school system, but I look to the ethnic minorities themselves to teach their culture, standards and language out of school times and at weekends, when they can most adequately do so.
  Mr. Faulds: Does the Minister realise how important it is for the integration and wholesomeness of British society that the recommendations in the Swann report should be regarded and some action taken on them?
  Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir.

  16 to 19-year-olds
  Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the chairman of he Manpower Services Commission on financial provision for 16 to 19-year-olds.
  Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have invited the Manpower Services Commission to consult employers and other interests about the implementation of the extended youth training scheme, but I have not recently discussed with the chairman of the MSC the question of financial support for 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least 20,000 young people from working-class homes will be forced to go out to work or on to youth training schemes because their parents cannot afford to keep them in full-time education? Will he urge the MSC to re-examine the need for a proper education maintenance allowance? If the right hon. Gentleman will not stand up for those young people, perhaps the chairman of the MSC will.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would send me the evidence that supports the figures that she has so confidently produced, because my evidence shows that the staying-on rate is nearly at record levels.
  Mr. Latham: Can we be sure that the new two-year scheme is intended to be a proper, integrated scheme rather than a mere extension into a second year?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I think that I can give that assurance, but matters of detail are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
  Mr. Nellist: In his discussions with the chairman of the MSC, has the Secretary of State commented on the allowance paid to youngsters on YTS, which, had it been increased in line with inflation or earnings in the past six years, would have been £40 instead of the miserable £26·5 which the Government are paying? How does the right hon. Gentleman justify Cabinet Ministers getting a 10 per cent. rise in salary last year, directors of private companies getting an 11 per cent. rise, profits rising at 20 per cent., but youngsters on YTS having their allowance cut year after year?
  Sir Keith Joseph: These are not my direct responsibilities but those of my right hon. Friend. I agree that at the heart of youth unemployment might in many cases be higher earnings than the market will pay them or than employers find it profitable to pay. If the hon. Gentleman wants to reduce youth unemployment, he should take these arguments very seriously.
  Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of parents are happy to accept responsibility for maintaining their children?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Sheerman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence exists and that we shall give it to him? At least 20,000 young people from working-class homes have to go on YTS instead of staying on in further education. It is worrying to hear the Secretary of State more or less saying that he has no responsibility for those who go on YTS, for the educational part of their courses or for integration with the further education service. Is he abdicating his responsibility to those young people?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I take responsibility for the educational content, but I have been asked questions which overwhelmingly are for my right hon. Friend.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Cabornasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will next meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss vocational qualifications.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I last saw the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission on 29 April with the chairman of the working group to review vocational qualifications, Mr. Oscar de Ville. I have no further meetings scheduled at present with the MSC chairman, but the Department and the inspectorate are fully involved in the review. Its results will be reported jointly to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
  Mr. Caborn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for an all-embracing national assessment of education training, especially in the 16-to19 age group? Does he agree that that can be achieved only if there is a thorough review of the present system?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. It is precisely because of that that Mr. Oscar de Ville has been asked to preside over a committee to do just that.

  Pre-School Playgroups
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the number and proportion of children entering school who have previously attended a pre-school playgroup.
  Mr. Dunn: The Department does not collect information on playgroup attendance, but the Pre-School Playgroups Association estimates that, in 1984, some 33 per cent. of three and four-year-olds attended pre-school playgroups.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Has my hon. Friend had time to study the evidence submitted by the Pre-School Playgroups Association to the Select Committee on Education and Science in which it documented its work on the important transition from home to school? Has he noted the emphasis that it puts on collaboration with parents, the community and volunteers?
  Mr. Dunn: I shall undertake to do just that. The research project by Professor Neville Butler of Bristol university has just been completed. The research concerned the association of pre-school educational experience with later cognitive development, educational achievement and behavioural adjustment. I understand that it included children with pre-school playgroup experience.

  Mathematics Teaching
  Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities in England following his recent statement on proposed changes in methods of teaching mathematics in schools; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Dunn: The Government have welcomed the publication of Her Majesty's Inspectorate's discussion document "Mathematics from 5 to 16". HMI looks forward to receiving comments from local education authorities and others on the matters raised in the paper.
  Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend encourage local education authorities to seek to get new recruits into the teaching profession from industry, as the new method of teaching mathematics is liable to require people who have already had practical experience in industry?
  Mr. Dunn: There is always a place for more well qualified teachers of mathematics, who can teach. The plans which we recently announced for initial teacher training are designed to provide places for enough new mathematics teachers to meet the needs of the schools.

  Engagements
  Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with 26 leading industrialists to discuss their role in the Government's policy to increase the number of engineering and technology students. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further
  852
  meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Finland. This evening I shall be giving a dinner for the Prime Minister of Finland.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Prime Minister aware that a current Ministry of Defence order for 11,000 artillery shells is being fulfilled by a Belgium-based company which appears to be using Soviet TNT because it is cheapest? Can the Prime Minister let the House know what assurances have been given of continuity of supply in the event of hostilities between East and West?
  The Prime Minister: The Department has a policy of introducing greater competition into — [Interruption.] Tenders are sought only from recognised and established sources of manufacture, predominantly within western Europe. We do not procure any ammunition direct from the eastern bloc. PRB, which got the order, is a Belgian state company with a high international reputation in the supply of ammunition, explosives and propellants. It is PRB which occasionally gets some of its explosives from eastern Europe.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Has my right hon. Friend noted today the publicity surrounding the 15-year-old girl who has been made a ward of court in order to have an abortion, expressly against the wishes of her mother? Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring this most unhappy event, and will she agree with me that, in the best interests of the family, parents must be responsible for their under-age children?
  The Prime Minister: That is normally so, but understand that in this case the matter came before the court, and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment.
  Mr. George Robertsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday, 21 May.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
  Mr. Robertson: Will the Prime Minister give us the latest update on her feud with the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the solution to handling the rates promises that she has given? After the ignominous backdown in Scotland, the panic reaction in the face of the Scottish rebellion, and the £50 million buy-off which has only brought more problems for those whom she did not help. can she tell the House now who is winning the Cabinet battle to save her face?
  The Prime Minister: I notice that I am constantly asked questions about the results of reviews which are still under way. The hon. Gentleman must contain his patience a good deal longer.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the workers of London Transport on their enormous good sense in refusing to join in a strike about which they had not been consulted? Does she share with me the sense of achievement that the industrial relations legislation passed by the Government is seen to be working most satisfactorily?
  The Prime Minister: I do share my hon. Friend's views. The industrial legislation which the Conservative Government passed in the teeth of Labour opposition has given rights to ordinary members of trade unions which

  853
  enable them to have a decisive say in strikes and matters affecting their future. I note that any future Labour Government—which I hope there will never be—would attempt to repeal that legislation.
  Mr. Steel: In contemplating last month's rise in inflation and the steady rise in unemployment, do any of the right hon. Lady's advisers ever suggest that what needs changing is not her voice but her policies?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will note that the Government whom he supported through thick and thin, and whose existence he prolonged, never reached as low a level of inflation as 6–9 per cent.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to encourage the chairman of the National Coal Board to give permission to that group of miners who wish to invest their own money to finance and work their own pit? Does she agree that, as they will be producing mainly for the domestic market, there can be no logical reason for stopping that sensible extension of private enterprise?
  The Prime Minister: I read the reports that a number of miners in Emley Moor colliery wanted to set up a miners' co-operative. I am sure that the NCB will consider carefully any proposals that the group may put forward. The Secretary of State for Energy and I recognise that some miners may want a more direct stake in their collieries, and that is a development that we would welcome in principle. We shall do everything to help.
  Mr. Kinnock: As the Prime Minister said, the inflation rate is 6· per cent. Does she still think that it will go down to her promised target of 3 per cent?
  The Prime Minister: As I said, the inflation rate is 6· per cent., which is below — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is below the lowest that the previous Labour Government ever managed to achieve. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said, we expect it to be back at just over 5 per cent. by the end of the year, and then to continue its further route downwards.
  Mr. Kinnock: May I ask the Prime Minister again: does she still think that the inflation rate will reach her promised target of 3 per cent., and if so, when will that occur? What changes in policy will the Prime Minister bring about to try to promote that, or is she really once again trying to con the country on inflation, as she tried to do on unemployment?
  The Prime Minister: As I said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that we expect the rate to reach around 5 per cent. by the end of the year, and to be lower still in 1986. [Interruption.] Yes, I do want it lower still. Yes, I do want it at 3 per cent., and below. It is the right hon. Gentleman whose policies would take it right up to 27 per cent., which was the record reached under Labour.
  Mr. Kinnock: When is the rate going to reach 3 per cent., or is the right hon. Lady copping out on this one again?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking his customary nonsense. We have a target of getting inflation down. The right hon. Gentleman's target would take inflation beyond the 27 per cent. that the previous Labour Government reached.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in implementing the plans agreed at the Dublin Common Market summit on the transporting of food aid from Common Market stockpiles to Ethiopia and Sudan; and if she will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: Ethiopia has received about 144,000 tonnes of cereals from the European Community and its member states since the beginning of this year, and Sudan about 93,000 tonnes. Sudan has also received about £8 million worth of other food from the Community.
  Mr. Taylor: In view of the highly publicised pledge by the Dublin summit to deliver 1· million tonnes of food aid to the drought areas of Africa, including Ethiopia, before the autumn harvest of 1985, is it not disappointing and disturbing that the total amount actually delivered to Ethiopia so far, with only five months to go, is 144,000 tonnes, which is less than the amount that we send to the Soviet Union and east Europe every week? Will the Prime Minister do all in her power to ensure that the Common Market keeps its pledge to assist starving Africa, particularly when other countries, such as the United States, have responded magnificently and promptly?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. As I told my hon. Friend in a previous reply, progress has been slower than we would have wished, but the matter has been taken up with the European Commission. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will take it up once again in Brussels at the meeting on 23 May. We are anxious that the process of food arriving in Ethiopia is speeded up. There are problems of distribution when it gets there, which also need attention.

  Engagements
  Mr. Flanneryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
  Mr. Flannery: Will the Prime Minister, for once, emerge from her cast-iron casing and admit that she and she alone is preventing a solution to the teachers' industrial dispute? Will she admit that she ordered her Secretary of State to use the 15 votes on the Burnham committee and on the employers' panel to block two proposals which were reasonably acceptable and might have helped solve the teachers' strike? When will she realise that the teachers are desperate, that their morale is low and that it is affecting the children? It is not the teachers, but the Prime Minister and her Secretary of State, who are harming our children.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has always made it clear that the Government are not able to make available additional resources in 1985–86. However, for the longer term he has also made it clear that if employers and teachers come to him with an affordable package involving both pay and conditions of service he will be willing to put it to his colleagues. The proposition that teachers are prepared to discuss pay but not what they are being paid for is absurd.
  Mr. Aitken: Has my right hon. Friend found time today to see press reports of a survey which show that 76

  855
  per cent. of the public wish to see the proceedings of this House televised? Can she — [HON. MEMBERS:"Declare your interest."]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the end of the Question.
  Mr. Aitken: Can my right hon. Friend say when the House will be given an opportunity to vote on the matter, and catch up with the House of Lords and public opinion generally?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that I heard a murmur from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there might be an opportunity for that in the autumn. I hope that that opportunity can be given.
  Mr. Haynesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
  Mr. Haynes: Is the Prime Minister aware that inflation is rocketing to 6· per cent.? Is she further aware that she and her Chancellor of the Exchequer are telling the workers of this nation that their earnings are too high, yet they make no mention of directors in high places who receive thousands upon thousands in increases each year? They never say a word about that. How about that, then?
  The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the Opposition appear to have been converted to policies that require lower inflation, and that they have utterly rejected all reflationary policies, all artificial increases in demand and all printing of money. Welcome to the views of the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
  Mr. Forsyth: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the over-generous tax concessions that are granted for the planting of trees? Is she aware that these are being abused, which results in the destruction of hill farms, a distortion in market land values, and the destruction of fishing interests and other activities in Scotland, with serious long-term consequences for the environment and for tourism?
  The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this. It is rare for the Government to be accused of having tax concessions that are too generous. I shall, of course, draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Higher Education
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Green Paper published today on the future development of higher education. Copies of the Green Paper are available in the Vote Office $[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly?
Sir Keith Joseph: Copies of the Green Paper are available in the Vote Office. It covers the United Kingdom as a whole and, therefore, I am speaking with the agreement of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I see my colleagues from those Departments on the Government Front Bench.
The purposes of the Green Paper are to present the Government's thinking on future development of higher education, to set the scene for the next decade, and to invite the views of those involved in higher education and of the taxpayers and ratepayers who finance so much of the cost.
The paper has been prepared in the light of advice on future strategy from the University Grants Committee and from the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education in England, published last September. In Scotland, a review of strategy and of planning and funding arrangements for higher education is being undertaken by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council. The application in Scotland of the policies addressed in the paper will be considered in the light of the council's advice, which will be available later this year.
As well as reaffirming the view of the aims and purposes of higher education defined in the Robbins report in 1963, the Government believe that it is vital for our higher education to contribute more effectively to the improvement of the performance of the economy. This is not because the Government place a low value on the general cultural benefits of education and research or on study of the humanities. The reason is simply that, unless the country's economic performance improves, we shall be even less able than now to afford many of the things we value most, including education for pleasure and general culture and the financing of scholarship and research as an end in itself. The Green Paper, therefore, emphasises the need for higher education to become more responsive to changing industrial and commercial circumstances, and the importance of close links between higher education on the one hand and business, the professions and the public services on the other.
Since 1963, successive Governments have endorsed the so-called "Robbins principle" that,
"courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so."
The UGC and the NAB have advised that qualification for higher education should be interpreted broadly and that the test should not be paper qualifications but "ability to benefit". So long as the taxpayer continues to bear most of the cost of higher education, however, the benefit must be sufficient to justify the cost. Subject to that, the Government accept that the criteria for entry to higher
858
education—which will, as at present, remain under the control of institutions themselves — should place more emphasis on intellectual competence, motivation and maturity, and less on formal qualifications. Those criteria should be applied as rigorously to those with paper qualifications as to those without. The Government do not expect this change of emphasis significantly to affect the numbers of students for whom higher education should be provided. A consultative paper on student support arrangements will be published shortly, as part of the review of such arrangements which I announced on 5 December last.
As with their policies for schools, in higher education too the Government are committed to raising standards and the pursuit of value for money. In both these areas important reports have recently been published, and are under active consideration.
The report of the committee of inquiry into academic validation in public sector higher education, chaired by Sir Norman Lindop and published in April, deals with the approval, and monitoring of standards, of degree level courses in polytechnics and colleges. It recommends substantial changes in the arrangements of universities which validate public sector courses and of the Council for National Academic Awards. One proposal is that some institutions in the public sector should in future take full responsibility for their own academic standards and award their own degrees. The Government have invited comments on the report and will consider these before coming to decisions.
The report of a steering committee chaired by Sir Alex Jarratt, based on efficiency studies undertaken in six universities, has proposed significant changes in universities' planning and management structures. The present arrangements were developed in a period of increasing resources. Now that resources are no longer expanding, changes are needed if universities are to be able to spend to best advantage the public funding likely to be available. The Jarratt report will also be relevant to the rest of higher education where other efficiency studies are in hand.
In research, the Government wish to ensure that the available resources are used to the greatest possible advantage, which requires more selectivity and planning. The University Grants Committee is developing and promoting new selective allocation and planning arrangements. It is also important that commerce, industry and the public services should take full advantage of what higher education has to offer through research, technology transfer, business start-up facilities and consultancy services. The Green Paper stresses the need for higher education to pay more attention to the development of such services.
The Green Paper recognises that continuing education should be a growth area in higher education, whether for vocational or non-vocational purposes. The Government and local authorities have an important role in stimulating such provision, and the Government contribute directly to the development of in-career vocational education through the professional, industrial and commercial updating programme. But the cost should not fall principally on the taxpayer and ratepayer. Employers are urged to recognise more fully their need, in their own interests, to encourage and to pay for the development and updating of their staff,

859
while adults in work can be expected to contribute substantially to the cost of courses that they take for career advancement or for personal satisfaction.
The Jarratt report recommends a review of the role, structure, and staffing of the University Grants Committee. The Government have accepted this recommendation, and I shall announce the terms of reference and form of the review as soon as possible.
The Government's expenditure plans published last January indicate the sums that the Government plan to make available for higher education up to the end of the present planning period. Beyond this there are the same difficulties about providing projections of future funding for higher education as there are for other public expenditure programmes. The Government accept that they must give the best indications of longer term policies for higher education that they can, but planning also requires institutions to manage their commitments and the funds available to them so as to be able to pursue their objectives effectively in circumstances of change and uncertainty. Present projections of student demand suggest that there will be a substantial fall in student numbers in the 1990s and planning for the changes that will be necessary must begin shortly.
The Government will review their policies for higher education in the light of the responses to the Green Paper, and hope to be able to make a further statement of intentions in the course of 1986.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement and the Green Paper have to be judged by how far they meet Britain's needs as we move into the next century—the need to ensure a good supply of highly trained graduates, the need to develop opportunities for continuing education, the need to provide wider educational opportunities and the need for high quality research? By those criteria the Green Paper, like his statement, is a miserable flop.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Has the hon. Gentleman read it?
Mr. Radice: I have read it. It has few new ideas and is totally lacking in vision. Like the Secretary of State's statement, it is more like a compendium of departmental position papers than a serious state paper setting out a strategy for higher education.
Will the Secretary of State accept that the Green Paper is more important for what it omits? It is tendentious about student numbers beyond the 1990s. It says little constructive about the binary divide. It fails to establish a machinery for overall planning, although we welcome the inquiry into the UGC. It leaves the issue of student support, so vital when we are considering student demand, for another document. Above all, it is irresponsibly evasive about resources.
Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has left the dirty work to the UGC, whose recent letter revealed that the consequences of the Government's plans will be that universities can expect a 2 per cent. real cut in their income in each of the next three years? The loss of revenue is equivalent to closing a medium-sized university such as Southampton, Exeter of Durham every year for the next three years.
Is it not the case that the 1981, and other, cuts impaired rather than improved efficiency? If the Secretary of State does not believe me, he should consult the UGC, the NAB
860
or the Jarratt committee. Does he seriously believe that the prospect of more redundancies, departmental closures and shutting whole institutions will create a more effective and more adaptable higher education system? Is it not true that the Government's higher education policy fails to meet our national needs? It will not provide wider educational opportunities or supply the highly skilled graduates that we require. It will fail to meet the research requirements of industry. In short, it is a recipe for national decline.
Is the Secretary of State aware that we in the Labour party reject his defeatist approach and will campaign both inside the House and out for the vigorous, dynamic and innovative higher education system that we need ?
Sir Keith Joseph: One of the main themes of the Jarratt report is that universities need a management structure if they are to make the best use of the large sums made available to them by the public, and that that management structure must enable the academics involved to know the options before them. When the Conservative Government came into office in 1979, we inherited a crisis from the outgoing Labour Government, with enormous inflation. We had to act quickly. The reduction in spending in the universities had to be implemented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), as my predecessor, at a time when the management structure proposed by Jarratt was not in place.
The hon. Gentleman accused me of exaggerating the fall in student numbers, but there is a projected fall of no less than one third-33 per cent. —in the age groups concerned in the 1990s. Against that, the Government are projecting a fall in places for higher education not of one third but of 14 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman also accused me of being evasive about resources. The Labour party seems never to need to be evasive about resources, because it always proposes to spend more. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he will spend more on universities than the Government are proposing to spend?
Mr. Mark Carlisle: I welcome the fact that today there are 60,000 more students in higher education than there were in 1979, but as the overall number of people in that age group is likely to drop dramatically in the 1990s, can my right hon. Friend say what assumptions he has made in his Green Paper about the likely proportion of 18 and 19-year-olds who will go to universities and other forms of higher education?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Why is it that Opposition spokesmen always concentrate upon the numbers in universities, as though they despise polytechnics? As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, there are today 60,000 more students in polytechnics than there were when this Government came to office, although at the highest there has been a fall in the number of university students-9,000 and 5,000 last year. As my right hon. and learned Friend also said, there is not only a record number of students in higher education but also a record age cohort. The University Grants Committee, in its wisdom — I take responsibility for the outcome— decided to have fewer places in universities to protect the indispensable research component. Although the proportion of the age

861
group in higher education is at record levels, we expect it to rise even higher and to be at 15 per cent. at least in the 1990s.
Mr. Clement Freud: We on these Benches believe that the Green Paper marks a shift from the unacceptable to the intolerable. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Green Paper is basically a testimony to the failure of the Government's economic policy? Why is it that the Secretary of State should be the only man in the country who believes that we have an adequacy of qualified graduates, and therefore is doing nothing to increase the number? Will he accept that he is doing for universities what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is doing for buses?
Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have been presiding over the expansion to record numbers and record proportions of the age cohort of students in higher education. I think that the hon. Gentleman must be discussing another phenomenon altogether.
Mr. David Madel: When the Government's commitment to raising standards in the classroom has been achieved, bearing in mind what has been said about continuing education, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the numbers of those seeking entry into higher education will increase and that the Government will be perfectly happy for the polytechnics to take in more students?
Sir Keith Joseph: The Government very much hope that their aim of raising the standard in classrooms will lead to a larger proportion of school leavers being qualified to go on to higher education, if they so wish and if they have the necessary maturity and motivation. We are not assuming that will come to pass, but we very much hope that it will. If a larger proportion of the age cohort shows that it is qualified for higher education, the Government will be glad to revise their plans.
As for my hon. Friend's other question, economic constraints have to be borne in mind. We are happy to expand the numbers in public sector higher education, provided that the expansion can be brought about without any diminution of standards within current costs.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Cannot the Secretary of State be persuaded to recognise that it is barbarism to attempt to evaluate the contents of higher education in terms of economic performance or to set a value upon the consequences of higher education in terms of a monetary cost-benefit analysis?
Sir Keith Joseph: I very much enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he accused me of barbarism because I felt protected by a sense that what I was doing was entirely justified. I equally enjoyed the speech of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in which—after I had consulted a dictionary—I found that my noble Friend had accused the right hon. Gentleman of living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We live in a time when, for better or worse, higher education is paid for out of public funds, when more and more research is very expensive and when business has not been as profitable as it should be. For all those reasons, it is necessary, if Britain's economy is to prosper in a highly competitive and increasingly
862
technological world, for the provision for and acquisition and practice of science in research terms to be supported to a large extent out of public funds.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It would be unwise to comment too soon on a Green Paper which has only just been made available to the House, although it has obviously been made available to the press beforehand. Although there appear to be elements in the Green Paper which are acceptable, wise and far-seeing, the general theme is one of contraction. Will my right hon. Friend be asking those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who believe in higher and further education to accept further contraction—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend represents Cambridge.
Mr. Rhodes James: This does not apply to Cambridge: it applies to the higher education of this nation. Surely a policy of contraction is not one that we can accept.
Sir Keith Joseph: I would far prefer to agree with my hon. Friend than to disagree with him, but surely he must accept that, while higher education is so largely dependent on public funds, there must be some link between the prosperity of the economy and the resources available to higher education, and that as our economy is fighting to regain profitable competitiveness in an increasingly tough world, that relationship is even more unavoidable.
Dr. John Marek: The Secretary of State must recognise that his statement today will do nothing to dispel the gloom, concern and dismay which is felt within higher education. How much longer will he allow salary levels in higher education to be continually eroded when there is now a generally evident lack of motivation and morale which shows itself in the teaching, research and quality of research in that sector? If the Secretary of State does not want to go down as someone who contributed significantly to our decline as a developed nation in the eyes of the next generation, will he now announce as his aim a system of quinquennial planning or its equivalent in higher education so that there is stability in the system? Furthermore, will he give a guarantee that from this day there will be no more cuts in real terms in the system?
Sir Keith Joseph: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that, in the days when quinquennial provision was made, no Government were able to fulfil the expectations created. It is not honourable to promise more than we know we can achieve in the way of stability.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I accept that the Government are right to put greater emphasis on science and technology subjects in higher education, but does my right hon. Friend see an enhanced role for employers to persuade young people, even while they are still at school, that those are the courses that they should pursue?
Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. The Prime Minister had a meeting this morning, discussing that very subject, with the chairmen of 24 leading businesses in this country.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State talked about more selectivity in research. Who, and on what criteria, will be responsible for that selectivity? On what rational basis will employers be asked to pay for medium and long-term research in universities?
Sir Keith Joseph: The method of applying selectivity is the responsibility of the UGC and NAB. I repeat, the Government take responsibility for the decisions of those bodies but carefully keep away from the detailed decisions that affect the allocation of funds between universities, leaving those decisions, in the case of universities, to the UGC.
As for the interest of business men in contributing towards middle and long-term research, it is for them to decide whether there is a business interest in it.
Miss Janet Fookes: Is there to be any radical, or even superficial, rethinking of the respective roles of polytechnics and universities? Will polytechnics which are able to grant degrees be able in future to call themselves universities? My polytechnic in Plymouth would be an excellent candidate.
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend will find in the Green Paper a reference to the predominance of, and leadership in, academic work by the universities. The Green Paper also pays tribute to the indispensable function of the polytechnics in fulfilling their role, in which, far more than the universities, they serve part-time students. The answer to my hon. Friend's question about any change of name by polytechnics which give degrees is that I should need convincing that there should be a change of name.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Like other hon. Members. I have had an opportunity only to glance at the Green Paper. I note, however, the complimentary remarks about the Open University on page 19. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Open University will not look on those passages as being quite so complimentary when it bears in mind the cuts that the Government have imposed on its activities in recent years? Should not the Open University be encouraged to expand its work, bearing in mind the need for scientific and technological development?
Sir Keith Joseph: I shall send the hon. Gentleman the table in which is set out the recommendations of the Visiting Committee as to what the Open University needs and the decisions that the Government have taken on those recommendations. The Government have, to a large extent. followed the proposals of the Visiting Committee to alleviate the complaints of the Open University.
Mr. Robert Key: My right hon. Friend made no reference in his statement to the role of overseas students when planning the future of higher education. By what criteria will he target Government support for overseas students?
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend will find in the Green Paper a reference to the study that is taking place into future policy in connection with overseas students. The proportion of overseas students is now 11 per cent. and rising.
Mr. Jim Callaghan: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the fact that, in the light of his statement today, thousands of young students with good A-level qualifications will be prevented from entering universities and polytechnics, and has he now abandoned the principle of Robbins?
Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should support his allegations with evidence. We have no evidence of any
864
people who are qualified to enter higher education not being able to secure a place. We agree, as has always been true, and was accepted by Robbins, that every applicant cannot expect to find a place in precisely the institution and on precisely the course that he or she wants. In general, however, we assert that there are places for ail who are qualified and who want to take them up.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that universities and institutions of higher education should be the cradle of democracy and free speech? Does he agree also that it is disgraceful that, in many student unions, some speakers have not been alowed to speak within the law to properly convened meetings? Will he say a little more about the Green Paper's proposals to challenge student union funding as a way of overcoming this problem?
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend will find references to both subjects in the Green Paper. I agree that campuses of higher education should be especially careful to protect freedom of speech, even when they disagree with the opinions expressed, provided those opinions are expressed within the law. In both cases, studies are in hand. The vice chancellors and principals are considering what they can do to protect free speech further.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: As a representative of a nation which was the first in Europe to introduce universal education and which, in the middle ages, had five universities when England had only two, I repudiate completely the philistinic attitude behind the right non. Gentleman' statement. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman continues to occupy the position of Secretary of State for Education and Science when he does not even believe in education. Why did the right hon. Gentleman purport to make the statement on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland when, according to my perusal of the Green Paper, only four paragraphs out of 58 pages relate to the Scottish system?
Sir Keith Joseph: The Scottish policy is awaiting the report by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, which we shall receive later this year.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: As one who also represents a country which introduced universal education but who does not need to parade the fact, suggest to my right hon. Friend that one of the worst education measures in Britain, especially in Scotland, was the erection of colleges of excellence such as the Heriot-Watt college of engineering and the Strathcilyde college of business in the "bogusity" of empire building universities. We should concentrate on relevant education in colleges of excellence, and the snobbism of university status should be abolished.
Sir Keith Joseph: I am sure that our joint purpose should be excellence and fitness for purpose in every institution.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in any other country, if one were asked, "Which is better run—British universities or British industry?" the overwhelming reply would be "The universities"? In those circumstances, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by proposing that the universities should be put in a position where some members of staff are not allowed to conduct research?

865
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the UGC argument that research is needed to provide a proper background for teachers?
Sir Keith Joseph: Academics argue whether research and teaching must accompany each other if teaching is to be good. Many passionately believe that they must while others argue against them. As for depriving some from access to research, I think that the hon. Gentleman has it slightly wrong. What is at question is the distribution of public money. To make the best use of public money, it surely makes sense to concentrate resources on those who show evidence, to the UGC's satisfaction, that they can use the resources in the best possible way.
Dr. Keith Hampson: While I accept my right hon. Friend's case on the deep-seated economic problems inherited by the Government and the need to control the use of resources, does there not come a point when, to improve the economy's performance, greater priority must be accorded to resources in higher education? Does my right hon. Friend know of any other advanced Western country that is not increasing resources in higher education? Will he bear in mind that this concern applied in 1972 when my right hon. Friend, the present Prime Minister, introduced her White Paper calling for the expansion of education to contribute to the vitality of our society and economy?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Sir Keith Joseph: Before the Opposition applaud my hon. Friend too loudly, let my hon. Friend and the Opposition remember that other Western European countries became much more prosperous than Britain, until the turning of the tide during the past six years. Alas, for the 40 years since the war, this country has been substantially overtaken by those other Western European countries. We cannot absorb their example without recognising that we must make the best use of our resources, which are nothing like as great as the resources of our neighbours in north-west Europe.
Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take account of the fact that the following business is limited by a timetable motion. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue for a further 10 minutes.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us who did not have the opportunity to go to university have been impressed by the fact that, since the second world war, people, especially young working people, have been given an opportunity to undertake higher education which they did not have before? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance —the country would like to have this important assurance — that, although there might well be a need to get more graduates into industry, the existing arts departments in the universities will not be closed and that the industrial sides will be developed further through our present methods of higher education? As a fellow of All Souls, the right hon. Gentleman knows —if he does not, he should—that man does not live by bread alone. He should understand that.
Sir Keith Joseph: It would be idle for me to pretend other than that the Government have openly asked the
866
UGC and the NAB to move a small proportion of resources and places from the arts and humanities in favour of the sciences, engineering and technology. I emphasise that the arts and humanities, when taught rigorously to appropriate pupils, are rightly regarded by employers as splendid training for responsibility in life. The arts and humanities are worth the high regard of all of us for the way in which they sharpen the minds of those who study them and for their contribution to scholarship and civilisation. As the Green Paper argues, unless we trade more effectively in the world, we shall not be able to afford the support of the scholarship and other civilised values that we wish to maintain.
Mr. David Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have reached the stage when an enlarged opportunity for higher education would aid our economic recovery and development and the progress of our society? Has he noticed that the press reaction to the leaks of the Green Paper has been to put the fear of Government into some universities? Is that my right hon. Friend's intention?
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend should bear in mind that since 1979 student places in higher education have been increased by 15 per cent. There are 60,000 more students in higher education—a record proportion of a record vintage. My hon. Friend seems to be espousing shaky arguments. It is only realistic to recognise the constraints on public spending. My hon. Friend is not at one with Opposition Members who are ready to support virtually every strike and outbid virtually every element of public spending. I hope that he will see the case in the Green Paper.
Mr. Derek Foster: The Secretary of State says that he wants higher education to relate more to the economy's performance. Is he not seeking to impose the same vicious cycle of contraction on higher education that his Government have imposed on manufacturing industry? How does the right hon. Gentleman deal with the challenge that the Japanese are training 10 times as many graduate engineers as Britain?
Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should not swallow such statistics too easily. The picture of our production of engineers is not truthfully represented—nothing like it — by the figure he has cited. The Japanese produce more engineers in proportion to population than we do. On the quality of engineers, it may be a different matter. The Japanese produce a significant proportion of very high-quality engineers, but some of the people who are turned out as engineers in Japan would not be so described in this country because their training is much narrower. I am not declaring contentment with our production of engineers, but the hon. Gentleman's comparison was altogether too glib.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: To what extent does my right hon. Friend judge that the system of lifetime tenure of senior academic posts prevents public expenditure from being directed to what the country needs in terms of output and what the undergraduates need in terms of employment? Does he agree that a university such as Exeter, which concentrates on oil-related engineering, medical engineering needed by disabled people and Arabic studies, which the oil industry needs, is far more in line

867
with the priorities that the country needs than some of the more esoteric centres which believe that they have a historic claim on our resources?
Sir Keith Joseph: In general terms, I align myself with my hon. Friend in believing that tenure is not an unqualified asset. That is why discussions are now in process with a view to introducing legislation to remove tenure in future higher education contracts. I emphasise that there is no reason to regard tenure as the only or indispensable protection of academic freedom, which we value and respect highly.
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: How can the Secretary of State claim to be pursuing academic excellence when he is responsible for the UGC's 2 per cent. cut in annual grant to universities? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's elitism merely a cover for his philistinism?
Sir Keith Joseph: Like any other part of the public sector, the universities must try to make more effective use of the taxpayers' money made available to them and I am sure that they will strive to do so. I am also constantly urging them, even though this may be possible only very slowly, to increase the amount of funding that they receive from the private sector, and I am glad to note that in the past year they have succeeded in increasing those funds significantly.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that every encouragement should be given to innovative polytechnics such as Bristol to market and encourage the development of their own research work? Will he comment on the extent to which the Green Paper will assist that process?
Sir Keith Joseph: I can do more than that. I can comfort my hon. Friend with the reminder that legislation is now going through the other House and will soon be in this House freeing polytechnics to exploit their research activities more than they do at present.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Did the Secretary of State really mean what he said in reply to my honourable and admirable Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) — that questions of medium-term and long-term research should be left to the commercial interests of companies rather than to considerations of the national interest?
Sir Keith Joseph: Either the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me or I expressed myself badly. His hon. Friend asked me what would justify business men deciding to contribute to medium-term or long-term university research, and I replied that it was for them to judge their own business interest.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: What proportion of qualified applicants cannot find a course in the subject of their first choice, and what plans are there in the Green Paper to reduce that number?
Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that it is possible to answer that question, but I repeat that from the Robbins report onwards it has never been guaranteed that any individual applicant will find a vacancy in the institution of his or her choice and the subject of his or her choice. That remains the position.
Mr. John Maxton: Does the Secretary of State accept the basic premise that one cause
868
of our economic decline this century has been our failure to invest in higher education? If that is so, why are the Government not increasing investment in higher education rather than reducing it?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman allow the inquiry into the University Grants Committee to consider the establishment of a separate Scottish UGC in order to get away from direct funding through his Department?
Sir Keith Joseph: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The criticism of many historians has been that this country has failed to provide technical education in schools and in higher education. The Government have taken substantial steps to make good that omission, but the Opposition have criticised us on every occasion.
Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the importance of the subject and I will allow a further five minutes, but then we really must move on.
Mrs. Anna McCurley: The press release states:
"In the universities the Government hopes that new selective planning and allocation arrangements can be formulated and begin to operate by the 1986–87 academic year."
Does that mean that there is a possibility of the arbitrary' cutting off of research programmes which may not appear highly significant but which are none the less very valuable?
Sir Keith Joseph: I understand that the process is to be gradual and that the proposal is particularly addressed to the extra money' provided by the Government for the modernisation of equipment in some areas.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the importance of the Open University, especially for those who for a variety of reasons are unable to study at a traditional university? Will he give sympathetic consideration to a real increase in funding for that excellent establishment?
Sir Keith Joseph: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes, but I cannot give such an unqualified response to the second part.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people will be delighted at the emphasis in paragraphs 2 and 5·9 of the Green Paper on the need for higher education to contribute more effectively to the improvement of the economy, which Lancaster has long done? Will he ensure that we continue to encourage foreign and especially Commonwealth students to come to Britain, bearing in mind the important contribution that they make to the stability and prosperity of their countries on their return?
Sir Keith Joseph: Within the sensible use of public funds I think that I can agree with both my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Roland Boyes: As history shows that Right-wing Governments always find it necessary to attack their country's intellectuals, and as the Government values are leading to the erosion of democratic rights and freedoms and civil liberties, was it not entirely predictable that our universities and academics would be similarly attacked?
Sir Keith Joseph: As the hon. Gentleman supported a Government who nearly destroyed our currency and our economy, I do not think that the intellectuals have anything to look for from him or his philosophy—as intellectuals and higher education now depend to such an extent on public finance and a prosperous trading sector.
Mr. Timothy Wood: I accept and welcome the growth in the number of students in higher education, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is growing concern about the disparity in numbers, especially in science and technology, compared with many of our competitors?
Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that things are quite as bad as my hon. Friend suggests. We must take into account not just the entry rate but the drop-out rate in some neighbouring countries. I believe that our figures are reasonably satisfactory compared with our neighbours in north-west Europe. It is true that our higher education figures are dwarfed by those for America and Japan but one would have to look more closely at the qualifications, input and output before making any definite judgment in that respect.
Mr. Gavin Strang: At a meeting with Scottish Labour Members, the university vice Chancellors pointed out that some of the students who had just graduated with first-class honours degrees had entered university with qualifications that would not now, with the cut in student numbers, enable them to gain entry. Is the Secretary of State satisfied with that state of affairs?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am very ready to accept that A-level grades are not an exclusively reliable indicator of future performance. They may be the least bad indicators that we have of one aspect of a candidate's qualifications. Character, record and other features have also to be considered by the institutions, and it is the institutions that now and in the future will choose their entrants.
Mrs. Angela Rumbold: Given my right hon. Friend's clearly stated belief that the taxpayer is entitled to benefits from his investment, can he explain more clearly to the House the proposals in the Green Paper that extend the requirements for entry into institutions of higher education from mere formal qualifications to requirements for motivation, maturity and better performance?
Sir Keith Joseph: As my hon. Friend repeats those words, I find them almost self-justifying. Someone who had the necessary formal qualifications might give evidence to the interviewers at a certain institution of lacking the motivation or maturity to take advantage of higher education. That is the reason for the Government's view.
Mr. Jack Straw: The Secretary of State talks of a 14 per cent. cut. What do his plans mean in terms of thousands of student and staff places to be cut in higher education?
Sir Keith Joseph: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman refers to the 14 per cent. fall in the projected demand rate in the 1990s compared with the 33 per cent. fall projected for the age vintage. We have the time—
Mr. Straw: How many places are to be lost?
Sir Keith Joseph: We do not know. The Government have declared the projections at this early date to give us time, with the UGC and the NAB, to work on such issues.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that polytechnics such as mine in Kingston will be pleased by the confidence demonstrated by his remarks today? In his planning, will my right hon. Friend compare the cost-effectiveness of equivalent courses in engineering and technology, which serve the vital interests of British industry, at universities and polytechnics?
Sir Keith Joseph: It is widely accepted that some departments at some polytechnics are probably stronger than some equivalent university departments.
I should tell the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that we hope to be able to publish next year a paper giving some of the implications of what we have announced today.
Mr. Bowen Wells: My right hon. Friend has treated us this afternoon to volleys of jargon. What exactly does he mean by relevant courses in the universities? Does he mean that the university teaching profession will no longer be able to tell students that they must study what university professors decide to teach them?
Sir Keith Joseph: While higher education is almost entirely supported by public funds, some attention must be paid to public benefit. That is why the Government have thought it necessary to ask the bodies concerned to switch some resources and places from the arts and humanities to the sciences, technology and engineering.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Sensible people, who mercifully exist in larger numbers in the universities than on the Opposition Benches, will welcome the initiation of a serious discussion on the long-term future of the universities. To a Conservative Government, this should be a matter of evolution rather than revolution. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the consultative documents about the UGC and student support will be published early enough to be considered alongside the Green Paper?
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. There is to be a consultative document on student support, but what is promised for the UGC is an inquiry, of which I shall give details before long. The consultative document on student support will be published before long.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Why will not the Secretary of State publish the implications of the Green Paper now? If he knows the implications, surely he should publish them. If he does not, how can he present the Green Paper to the House?
Sir Keith Joseph: I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It was my fault — I misunderstood his question. We know — they are published in this paper—the number implications of the fall in student places. It will be, for variant Y, a fall of 74,000. I have promised that by next year we shall try to interpret the implications for the higher—[Interruption.] It is all explained in the Green Paper. There are charts —[Interruption.] It is all spelt out in the Green Paper. There is nothing new in this. Variant Y has been spelt out

871
for some time. We propose to publish next year the possible options open to the country to deal with the situation.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In view of the grave anxieties expressed on both sides of the House, will the Secretary of State press the Leader of the House to initiate an early debate on the Green Paper, which is an admission of despair and a body blow to our economic prosperity? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why. after six years of monetarist policies, he is announcing a retreat from the Robbins principle and denouncing the proposal of the Prime Minister, when Secretary of State for Education and Science in the 1970s, to get 22 per cent. of the relevant age group into higher education? Why do the Government now have a target of only 14 per cent.? Is it not a black day when a fellow of All Souls tells a House of Commons that includes more graduates each year that future generations are to be denied the opportunities that many of us enjoyed, and that, in the 1990s, we shall be training fewer graduates than ever before? Is not that an appalling state of affairs?
Sir Keith Joseph: I draw the attention of the House to pages 12 and 13 of the Green Paper, in which there are charts showing the projections. It is for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to press the Leader of the House for a debate.
Dr. Hampson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is to safeguard the rights of the House that Government statements are not released until the statement is given in the Chamber. With a document as large as the Green Paper, hon. Members are seriously inconvenienced by this practice. We all have to rush out of the Chamber for the document. That is disruptive, and we miss part of what is said. Can you assist us, Mr. Speaker, in changing the procedure. even if only by making documents available at 2.30 pm?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to make the documents available. I realise that this is an important statement. That is why I allowed questions on it to run longer than 1 had thought would be appropriate.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be possible to arrange for questioning to take place on the day after publication of the Green Paper? We would then have a chance to read it. It is nonsense to be asked to discuss something instantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) says that he opened the report at a certain page that happened to deal with the Open University and so he asked a question on that subject. The situation is silly.
Mr. Speaker: There is much force in what both hon. Gentlemen have said. I suggest that they put the matter to the Leader of the House. Thursday would be a most appropriate time.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I also gain your support for the idea that documents on which we are supposed to question Ministers in a serious manner should be distributed earlier than is customary? The press are given press releases to read, while we have to scrabble around and to listen carefully to what is said. That is a grave discourtesy to the House, to say the least, and does not add to the prestige that the House should attract.
Mr. Speaker: There is usually an embargo on documents issued to the press. The expressions of opinion this afternoon have been very relevant. I am sure that the Leader of the House would take note of them if the hon. Members concerned were to put the matter to him during business questions.

Fair Rating
4.29 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the elimination of agricultural derating over a five year period.
My Bill would ensure that the agriculture industry pays rates on its buildings like any other industry in the United Kingdom. Because the sum involved is substantial, I propose that reform should be spread over five years.
The fact that agriculture makes no contribution to the costs of local government is an unjustified and grotesque anomaly, which is an insult to many other industries which, in some cases, are struggling to survive under a heavy rates burden that could be reduced if agriculture paid its fair share. If the Treasury adjusted rate support grant to take account of the extra valuations, about £300 million a year would be available for reductions in general taxation.
Agricultural derating was introduced in 1929 as a modest endeavour to alleviate agricultural distress during the great slump when no other means of support was available to the industry. Circumstances have changed dramatically, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will confirm. Rates, which were then a modest burden, have become a major business cost. Farm buildings were modest and unsophisticated in 1929, but the agricultural revolution has resulted in an explosion of expenditure on costly buildings and facilities. Far from reducing or abolishing the concession, however, Parliament extended it in 1971 so that it now applies to what are loosely referred to as factory farming operations such as chicken battery systems and commercial buildings used by farm syndicates and co-operatives. Soon afterwards, case law extended the exemption to fish farming.
I find the continuation of agricultural derating puzzling because every committee set up by the Government to examine the rating system has declared that the exemption is intolerable and unjustified and should be ended. The Layfield commission, which was set up in 1976, expressed the unanimous view that there was no good reason for the concession to continue.
Why has nothing been done about this rating anomaly, which means that all other ratepayers and taxpayers have to bear an unfair burden? Has nothing been done because of administrative problems? That cannot be the answer because our efficient Inland Revenue would have no difficulty making the necessary valuations, because it constantly has to value all types of new buildings between general revaluations.
Has nothing been done because agriculture is especially depressed and vulnerable?
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes.
Mr. Taylor: This does not add up.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is both.
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) must be aware of the principle of rating which is that rates must be paid irrespective of whether businesses are profitable or depressed. I could give him the names of many firms that have great difficulty paying rates. Even if profitability were a factor, the evidence shows that agriculture receives more protection than any other industry.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, it does not.
Sir Peter Mills: That is rubbish.
Mr. Taylor: Industry faces foreign competition with a tariff protection of 10 per cent., yet the protection of some commodities exceeds 200 per cent. through import levies. While industry struggles to secure customers, farming in general receives a guarantee that all of its produce will be purchased at a price well above that in the market—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is not true.
Mr. Taylor: We spend more than £100 million every week in the Common Market destroying food, dumping it or storing surplus produce that cannot be sold. There is no special case, but even if there were the principle of business rating is that rates are paid irrespective of profitability, as many firms in my constituency and others, including agricultural ones, know to their cost.
Has nothing been done because rating reform is round the corner? Far from being a reason for inaction, the prospect of reform should make us even more determined to set down a marker that the concession should not be written into any new system.
Are we refusing to act because food prices would rise?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes.
Mr. Taylor: Even if that were true, there would be commensurate reductions in the price of other goods as the burden was taken off other industries. Even those who argue the case of agriculture know that farming prices do not reflect costs or the operation of the market because of the Socialist and interventionist price-fixing arrangements of the common agricultural policy.
I believe that there has been no action to remove an anomaly which we all know is a grotesque nonsense and an insult to ratepayers because it would involve putting an additional burden on an industry which has a great deal of friends and political clout and has much sympathy from all of us. That is especially true because the chemical industry is now integrated with agriculture and many City institutions and pension funds have sizeable holdings in the land.
There is a basic theme to the Government's policies — the removal of all unjustified privileges and protections and the eradication of unfair subsidies. Whether it be the mining industry, the car industry or engineering, we must remove unfair privilege and subsidy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly said that, when considering the future of rates, we should try to ensure that a wider section of the community which benefits from local authority services should contribute to the costs of local government. Agricultural derating is an illogical and unjustified privilege. It runs contrary to natural justice and is terribly unfair to other ratepayers. I hope that the House will cast aside any special interests and ensure that this wholly unjustified privilege is removed.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Wholly justified.
Mr. Taylor: I am aware from the shouts that, when it comes to voting, I shall be on a rather sticky wicket, but surely justice will prevail in Parliament. I am comforted, amid the scandalous shouts and abuses of procedure, by the knowledge that my cause is just and that, in the last

875
century, it took 15 years of determination in Parliament to repeal the Corn Laws. This is a similar injustice. We should stand up for every ratepayer in Great Britain and treat everyone the same way. We should tell them that Parliament believes in justice and equity.
4.37 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells rose —
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the motion?
Mr. Howells: Yes. I declare my interest as I am involved with the agriculture industry.
I oppose the motion on several grounds. First, rather than produce justice and fair play as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) claims, the Bill would merely add to the complexities inherent in the present rating system. We all know that there are many anomalies and unjustices in that system and that we must eventually find a just solution, but why should we add to the confusion by introducing yet another category of rateable property?
The hon. Member has already condemned the whole rating system. I was interested to read an article that he wrote only last March on this very subject.
Sir Peter Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) speaking on behalf of the Liberal party? If he is, it should be made clear that the Liberal party supports agricultural rating.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.
Mr. Howells: Having analysed and dismissed several choices for rating reform, the hon. Gentleman presented his own solution thus:
"we should sweep away all rates—for householders, industry and commerce—and provide funds for local councils from the Treasury."
In this way, he says:
"we would get rid of all the injustices of rates entirely."
Today, however, with this measure the hon. Gentleman is turning his own argument on its head.
The second reason for strong opposition to the measure is that its application would place an unjust burden on the sections of the farming industry that are least able to bear it. What the hon. Gentleman perhaps does not understand is that there is tremendous variety in the agriculture industry, and that some sectors of the industry need to use outbuildings more than other sectors. Therefore, it is not the cereal grower, reputedly at the top end of the financial scale, who is likely to be penalised by additional rates, but the livestock farmer and especially the dairy farmer, who have suffered enough in the last year or so, and who will have to pay heavy bills for essential buildings.
It should also be remembered that the value of the output of agricultural buildings is very low in relation to the capital value of the buildings. This fact would present even more anomalies when comparisons are made with other industries.
I am entirely sympathetic to the concern of the hon. Gentleman for small businesses in particular. Their burden in terms of rates should be given urgent consideration. There is a need to change the system. It is patently in need of reform. However, the answer does not lie in extending the burden to other categories of small business, which include the farmer.
876
I should like to stress also that the rating of agricultural holdings could well be seen as the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. Many people fear that agricultural land itself would be in danger. I put on record that the Liberal party is against the rating of agricultural land because we do not think that it is right to add to the already high cost of producing food, and our concern, therefore, is just as much for the consumer as it is for the producer. Food is necessary to life, and its production cannot be compared to the production of other commodities and taxed in the same way.
The measure in my view is a retrograde step which merely tinkers with solutions and adds nothing to the serious debate on rating that needs to be considered urgently. Another way must be found of producing a system that is fair and just for all sections of society.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order,No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 184.

Division No. 214]

[4.45 pm

AYES

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Lamond, James

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Litherland, Robert

Bell, Stuart

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Benn, Tony

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Loyden, Edward

Bermingham, Gerald

McCartney, Hugh

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Boyes, Roland

McKelvey, William

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

McWilliam, John

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Marek, Dr John

Caborn, Richard

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Canavan, Dennis

Maxton, John

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Maynard, Miss Joan

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Michie, William

Clay, Robert

Mikardo, Ian

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Corbett, Robin

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Cowans, Harry

O'Brien, William

Craigen, J. M.

O'Neill, Martin

Crowther, Stan

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Cunningham, Dr John

Ottaway, Richard

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

Park, George

Dixon, Donald

Patchett, Terry

Dobson, Frank

Pike, Peter

Dubs, Alfred

Randall, Stuart

Duffy, A. E. P.

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Eastham, Ken

Robertson, George

Edwards, Bob (W'h'ampt'n SE)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Sedgemore, Brian

Faulds, Andrew

Sheerman, Barry

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Fisher, Mark

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Flannery, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Forrester, John

Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Snape, Peter

Garrett, W. E.

Soley, Clive

George, Bruce

Spearing, Nigel

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Straw, Jack

Godman, Dr Norman

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Tinn, James

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Wareing, Robert

Haynes, Frank

Weetch, Ken

Heffer, Eric S.

Winnick, David

Home Robertson, John

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Mr. Richard Shepherd and

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Mr. Jonathan Aitken.

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Fox, Marcus

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Franks, Cecil

Amess, David

Freud, Clement

Ancram, Michael

Gale, Roger

Arnold, Tom

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Ashdown, Paddy

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Beggs, Roy

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Benyon, William

Gorst, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gower, Sir Raymond

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Greenway, Harry

Blackburn, John

Grist, Ian

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Grylls, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gummer, John Selwyn

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Harris, David

Brinton, Tim

Haselhurst, Alan

Bruce, Malcolm

Hawksley, Warren

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hayhoe, Barney

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Hayward, Robert

Buck, Sir Antony

Henderson, Barry

Burt, Alistair

Hind, Kenneth

Butcher, John

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Holt, Richard

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Hordern, Peter

Cartwright, John

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Cash, William

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Chapman, Sydney

Howells, Geraint

Churchill, W. S.

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Irving, Charles

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Jackson, Robert

Clegg, Sir Walter

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Coombs, Simon

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, John

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Crouch, David

Kennedy, Charles

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Dicks, Terry

Key, Robert

Dunn, Robert

King, Rt Hon Tom

Durant, Tony

Kirkwood, Archy

Dykes, Hugh

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Lang, Ian

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Latham, Michael

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lawler, Geoffrey

Fookes, Miss Janet

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Lester, Jim

Renton, Tim

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lightbown, David

Rowe, Andrew

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lord, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Luce, Richard

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

MacGregor, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Silvester, Fred

Maclean, David John

Sims, Roger

Maclennan, Robert

Skeet, T. H. H.

Major, John

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Malins, Humfrey

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Malone, Gerald

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Marland, Paul

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mather, Carol

Stern, Michael

Maude, Hon Francis

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stradling Thomas, J.

Meadowcroft, Michael

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Mellor, David

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thornton, Malcolm

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Tracey, Richard

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Monro, Sir Hector

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Moore, John

Waddington, David

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Moynihan, Hon C.

Walden, George

Neale, Gerrard

Wall, Sir Patrick

Nelson, Anthony

Wallace, James

Neubert, Michael

Walters, Dennis

Onslow, Cranley

Watson, John

Osborn, Sir John

Watts, John

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Wheeler, John

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

Wiggin, Jerry

Pawsey, James

Wigley, Dafydd

Pollock, Alexander

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Porter, Barry

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Price, Sir David

Proctor, K. Harvey

Tellers for the Noes:

Raff an, Keith

Mr. A. J. Beith and

Rathbone, Tim

Mr. David Penhaligon.

Question accordingly negatived.

TRANSPORT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Ordered,
That the Reports [13th and 20th May] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Neubert.]
Reports considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolutions, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) and agreed to.
Following is the report of the Business Committee [13 May]:
That—

(1) The order in which proceedings on Consideration are taken shall be New Clauses, Amendments to Clause No. 1, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 2 and 3, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 4 to 55, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 56 to 94, Schedule No. 4. Clauses Nos. 95 to 114, Schedules Nos. 5, 6 and 7, Clause No. 115 and new Schedules;

(2) The allotted days which under the Order [1st April] are given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clauses

Midnight

Second day

Amendments up to the end of Part II

6.00 pm

Amendments up to the end of Part IV

7.30 pm

Remaining Proceedings on Consideration

9.00 pm

Third Reading

10.00 pm

Following is the report of the Business Committee [20 May]:
That the resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 13th May be varied by substituting the following provisions for those in the Table at the end of that Resolution:

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time of conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clauses

10 pm

First

Amendments up to the end of Part II

Midnight

Second day

Amendments up to the end of Part III

6 pm

Amendments up to the end of Part IV

7.30 pm

Remaining proceedings on Consideration

9 PM

Third Reading

10 PM

Orders of the Day

  Transport Bill
  [IST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  Transport Bill
    New Clause 6

      APPLICATION OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1976 TO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORT OPERATORS
      '. —

      (1) Paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) Order 1976 (which excepts certain agreements between road passenger transport operators from the agreements which by virtue of Article 3 of the Order are agreements to which the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 applies) shall cease to have effect.

      (2) That Act shall have effect in relation to any agreement (within the meaning of that Act) made before this section comes into force as if the variation of that Order made by subsection (1) above had been made by an order under section 11 of that Act coming into force on the date on which this section comes into force. '.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.55 pm
      The Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 122.
      Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of new clause 6 is to remove the exemption from restrictive trade practices legislation that currently applies to agreements between bus and coach operators. That exemption was appropriate when bus services were regulated. It will not be appropriate following deregulation. Competition is at the heart of our policy for buses, and the purpose of restrictive trade practices legislation is to foster competition and to prevent undesirable restrictive trade practices.
      In future when two or more operators enter into agreements by which they accept restrictions concerning the fares they will charge, the areas they will serve, the frequencies to the services and so on, they will be required to register such agreements with the Office of Fair Trading. Agreements that involve significant restrictions are to be referred by the Director General of Fair Trading to the Restrictive Practices Court.
      However, I should add that, although the Restrictive Trade Practices Act is of general application, it allows a certain amount of flexibility. I emphasise that, of the agreements that are registrable, it is only those that contain significant restrictions that are likely to be referred to the court. It will then be open to the parties to those agreements to seek to persuade the court that, in terms of the criteria laid down in the Act, they are not against the public interest and can therefore stand. So the provision does not spell the end of all forms of agreement between bus operators. It does provide an essential safeguard for the interests of the passengers, which we regard as supreme in terms of the new legislation.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The new clause is an interesting example of the muddle into which Ministers have got themselves over the entire Bill. Throughout the Bill, first and foremost we are deregulating bus services. It is clear that if the interests of the passengers were truly paramount, they would require that co-operation was one of the most important things that could be offered to the traveller.
      It is extraordinary that two or more operators will be covered by the agreement. I ask the Minister why he must set the number so low. In a rural area, we shall presumably have all the tiny bus companies that the Minister has been extolling throughout the Bill, the one man with his redundancy pay buying one bus. If he comes to a sensible timetable agreement with another man with a bus that he, too, has bought with his redundancy pay, will he automatically be referred to have his careful organisation examined in case he is in some way promoting a restrictive trade practice? If it were not so embarrassingly stupid, this would be one of the funniest clauses that even this hilarious Government have introduced throughout this bizarre, thankless and unnecessary Bill.
      If we are to believe the Secretary of State, the National Bus Company and all the other bus operators are to be broken down into tiny units which, in some cases, will be no longer than that operating out of one particular garage. At present the co-ordination of timetabling, particularly the co-ordination of services, is of most use to the traveller. We have been unable to persuade the Secretary of State, who is really not interested in transport, of the advantages of transport planning. Indeed, he seems to reserve some of his rudest comments for those who have made the mistake of acquiring transport qualifications, whom he seems to regard as less than the dust. If he had been prepared to accept that co-ordination is vital, he would have seen that, inevitably, many operators, even if they are independent, will want to dovetail their services with those of their competitors in areas where, for one reason or another, there is enough work to go round to provide several services.
      If the Secretary of State is to be believed, we could find ourselves with many small independent operators, not large ex-National Bus Company companies. That is a valid point. We know that at present, even before the Bill becomes law, many independent companies work closely with NBC companies. They plan interchanges, dovetail their services and provide support services for each other. There is no great danger in that to the passenger. Indeed, it is to his advantage. Yet if as few operators as two could be referred, the position would become dangerous.
      Is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary genuinely of the opinion that the sort of transport planning that arises from operators reaching a sensible agreement is in some way a dangerous trade practice? If so, how does he justify his attitude since passengers want well timetabled, well planned and available services? If he is genuinely considering passengers, why on earth does he set the level as low as two operators?
      Dr. John Marek: I wish to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The new clause shows what nonsense the Bill is. The proposal is to deregulate bus services completely, yet the new clause shows that the
      882
      Government are worried about restrictive practices emerging. It is entirely possible that in some cases that will benefit the public. I shall give one simple example.
      A town bus service may follow a route but not go to the extremities of a town because it is not worth it. A second bus operator may have a route part of which is the same as that of the first operator. Both operators may find it unprofitable to go to the extremity of the town, for example, to a housing estate, although they may both find it profitable to work the route inside the town. They could reach an agreement under which one would operate to the town's extremities on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and the other on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. That would be in the interests of the public, and the operators might be able to get a return for their services if they operate alternately, although they could not if they both operated the service every day. There would be profit in it and, as we know, the Government are interested only in profit, not whether passengers can get on buses. In that example, I would be in favour of a restrictive practice. The philosophy of the Labour party is along those lines.
      Because of the position in the stage carriage services today, it is necessary to have something called integration. I shall not dwell on that, but it is symptomatic of the difference of attitude between the Opposition and the Government.
      Mr. Eric Forth: Lest the House should be mistaken in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman explain from his perception how it is that over the decades an inexorable loss of passengers from the buses, a decline in the level of services and massive increases in fares and subsidies, which we seek to sort out, show a healthy bus industry, as opposed to the picture that he paints?
      Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said that there had not been a decline in passengers in Yorkshire. [HON. MEMBERS: "We know why."] I am sorry that Conservative Members say that they know why. The answer is that "Fares fair" has been sufficiently low to provide a good bus service of which everyone can take advantage without having to worry whether he can afford to pay for it.
      Mr. Forth rose —
      Dr. Marek: I shall certainly give way in a moment.
      The costs of that service are taken from general taxation and paid for by the people of Sheffield. That is their choice, and as members of the electorate in Sheffield they should be allowed to make that choice. It is wrong for the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) to deny the citizens of Sheffield the type of service they want. He may well have some technical arguments about taxation with that money coming from the general pool and then being distributed, but that is not necessarily relevant to the new clause. Some changes may be necessary — we discussed that in Committee — to ensure that the responsibility for providing services falls on the people in those areas, subject to a minimum standard of support dependent on the prosperity of the area.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Sheffield, like many other cities, has nearly half of its rates paid by the Treasury through rate support grant, that that money is garnered from every corner of the country and, therefore, that authorities and people in other parts which do not choose to subsidise their

      883
      bus services but run them economically are subsidising the people of Sheffield? Why should they be subsidised at the expense of the rest of the country?
      Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman must know that rate support grant is at a certain percentage throughout England and at a different percentage throughout the whole of Wales, and that different arrangements apply in Scotland. Therefore, the argument could easily be turned the other way. It could be argued that the citizens of Sheffield are paying for the bus services in Lancashire and Mid-Worcestershire.
      Mr. Richard Caborn: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the transport policy for the Falklands were applied to south Yorkshire, the cost to the Government would be about £500 million, which is about 50 per cent. of that which is provided to the Falklands? Does he further agree that there is a slight disparity between the transport policy for the Falklands and that for the United Kingdom?
      Dr. Marek: Obviously, as my hon. Friend has produced those figures, I agree.
      There is complete disparity and lack of judgment by the Government about which policies should be given proper weight in this and many other areas. For many years it has been evident to Opposition Members—it is also clear from the opinion polls, if they are anything to go by—that the Government will not sit on those Benches for much longer.
      It is curious that the Government introduced the new clause because they are worrying about restrictive practices. During all our Committee proceedings they talked only about deregulation, people doing whatever they liked, and not wishing to stop an operator doing anything if he could make money from it. It was immaterial whether the public were served by such practices.
      I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich: the fact that the Government must introduce such a new clause on report shows the stupidity of the Bill.
      Mr. Gordon Oakes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I also wonder, when so much thought has apparently been given to the Bill for so long, why the new clause has been introduced. Why was it not introduced in Committee or, indeed, inserted in the Bill from the start? What events, what train of thought, and what events have made the Government table the new clause now?
      As my hon. Friend said, agreements between operators are not per se against the public interest. Indeed, they can be in the public interest. It is perfectly sensible for an operator to agree with another operator, especially in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) pointed out, to divide the services between them. The public do not want queues of competing buses, but a bus. The Opposition fear that in many suburban and rural areas, especially at weekends, there will not be a bus. There will be no bus, for sound, private enterprise reasons: it will not pay the operator to send out a bus. That will be the result of the Bill.
      Why have the Government introduced this new clause so late, and why do they believe that fair agreements,
      884
      which are made in other trades and industries, must automatically operate against the interests of the travelling public?
      Mr. Forth: I cannot understand why the Opposition are puzzled about the introduction of the new clause. Having spent all the hours that we did together in Committee, there is every good reason for the Government to come to the House now with a reasonable measure that no doubt emerged from our dialogue in Committee—
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Dialogue?
      Mr. Forth: I said "dialogue". I can understand why the hon. Lady is surprised, bearing in mind the one-sidedness of the proceedings in Committee. However, if Labour Members wish it, we can return to that subject later.
      The Bill will introduce a new approach to transport. not the uniform approach of the past. The uniformity of attitude, techniques and vehicles—any uniformity that one cares to think of—has utterly failed us in the past, has caused a decline in the bus sector and has not provided the travelling public with what they want. We need only examine the inexorable decline in the number of travelling passengers during the years to understand that they have made their judgment on the inadequacy of bus services. The Bill and especially the new clause address that problem. We wish to ensure, as far as reasonably possible, a new approach to the provision of bus services.
      Mr. Jim Craigen: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman told us about the reduction in, the number of people travelling by bus, how does he account for the reduction in the number of people travelling by bicycle during the same period?
      Mr. Forth: I doubt whether that is true. Recently, there has been a great revival in the use of bicycles, and one need only consider the number of bicycles on the premises to prove the point. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has recently taken to the bicycle; even among us, there are living examples of people who are taking to two wheels to get around.
      Mr. Hind: Perhaps if my hon. Friend and I had consulted Dr. Snashall, the House of Commons doctor, we would be riding bicycles. People today are much more exercise-conscious, and the bicycle is an ideal way of taking exercise.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
      I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister introduced the new clause, because he has understood, as he invariably does, the necessity to make the Bill work for the benefit of the travelling public. In doing so, we must ensure the provision of a variety of flexible services by private operators who know their localities and the needs of local passengers. They will provide the sort of service to which passengers will respond by paying their fares, which will provide revenue and profit to the operators. Everyone will be satisfied.
      Mr. Craigen: The hon. Gentleman need not consult the House doctor. He need only read the first report of the Select Committee on Transport, which shows that the share of passenger travel by bicycle decreased during the period about which we are talking.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that we were here to discuss the provision of bus services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not bring

      885
      bicycles into the discussion too often. Perhaps he has taken to heart the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
      I welcome the new clause, which is a demonstration of the extent to which the Government listened to the debates in Committee and were prepared to introduce several measures, responding to requests made from both sides of the Committee, to improve the operation of the Bill and to achieve its aims. In that spirit, I wholeheartedly support the new clause.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Peter Pike: The new clause shows how ill thought out the Bill is and how quickly the Government have tried to get it on the statute book. I still do not believe that they are aware of the problems that will arise, especially in the provision of rural and off-peak services. No doubt, when the Minister replies to this debate, he will say that the new clause was introduced to ensure unfettered and fair competition. But if the Government were sincere about that, they would have introduced amendments to ensure that terms and conditions of service are laid down when tenders are invited. There is no such provision in the Bill as drafted. The Government intend to make the Bill work by worsening the working conditions of employees in the bus industry. That is the only way in which they can hope to achieve a sensible operation of the Bill.
      If the Government are moving the new clause to try to secure fair competition, they should have tabled another amendment to ensure that the terms and conditions of employment will be at least equal to those in the municipal undertakings, the National Bus Company and all passenger transport authorities.
      It is for local electors to determine by how much they wish to subsidise their public transport services. That should not be determined by national Government. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said: if the people of Sheffield wish to pay that subsidy in their area, they have the right to do so. I know that Conservative Members will talk, as they did in Committee, about the large subsidy from the Government in rate support grant and the fact that most rates are raised from business and commerce. However, at the end of the day, the people determine who they want to serve in local government. It is a retrograde step to remove from local authorities the power to determine what transport they want in their areas, what fares they wish to charge and the subsidies that they wish to give.
      Conservative Members do not accept that view; nor do they accept that public transport is a public service. My hon. Friends and I wish it to develop in that way. During our debates today and tomorrow, there will be many conflicts, because, after all the hours of debate in Committee, the Government will not budge an inch. They do not recognise the need to safeguard transport, especially for the young, the elderly, the disabled, and those who need off-peak, Sunday and rural services.
      Mr. Hind: I welcome the new clause, which is a sensible improvement to the Bill. We have heard the stock response from the Opposition that any change in the Bill constitutes a muddle, not an improvement. But this clear improvement has arisen from our discussions in Committee. The Opposition do not understand the essence of the Bill, which is to give the public a greater and
      886
      cheaper choice of public transport. That inevitably means the introduction of more operators to fill existing gaps, especially in rural areas. They can be filled by the one-man bus operations that the Opposition are so fond of knocking and for which they express so much contempt.
      The clause protects the choice which it is essential to preserve under the Bill by allowing small operators to stay on the road. The simple pilot scheme in Hereford and Worcester provides a reason for the clause. The National Bus Company, by introducing buses from other parts of the country, attempted to drive out the new small operators. The new clause will prevent two large operators from getting together to drive out competition that may be in the public interest.
      Dr. Marek rose —
      Mr. Hind: The smaller companies may have lower fares and lower overheads. Therefore, it will be in the interests of bigger operators to drive them out. The clause is thus essential to protect the interest and choice of the general public.
      Dr. Marek rose —
      Mr. Hind: I shall give way in a moment.
      The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) commented with contempt about the referral by the Director General of Fair Trading to the Restrictive Practices Court, but it must be borne in mind that the Director General of Fair Trading and his office will be a filter to consider all the agreements and to decide whether an agreement is fair. If he finds that an agreement is in the public interest, it will not be referred to the Restrictive Practices Court. That gets over the criticism of two one-man bus operators working together to run a service by themselves. The clause will provide an essential legal safeguard. This is a piece of the jigsaw that was missing from the Bill originally. It is essential protection for the general public.
      Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Hereford trial area. He should know that competition is now confined to just one corridor on the east of the city. The lesson is clear: everyone has run at a loss in the trial area and nobody produced conclusive evidence that there has been a profit. Does the hon. Member also know that services to Kington and Presteigne are not as good as they were before and that no new routes have been created? If the hon. Gentleman says that is a good result of the Hereford trial, heaven help us.
      Mr. Hind: Perhaps the hon. Member will bear in mind that during the pilot study the National Bus Company reduced fares to virtually nothing. How can that possibly mean that it ran an economic service? Can it have had any intention other than to drive off the road any competition that was already there? I do not accept that the bus service in Hereford and Worcester is worse than it was before but, if it is, the people in the area can put it down firmly to the reaction of the National Bus Company in cross-subsidising the Hereford and Worcester operation with fares collected elsewhere from bus users who were not paying economic fares.
      Mrs. Dunwoody rose —
      Mr. Hind: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has given a strong argument for the clause and I commend the Secretary of State for tabling it.
      Mrs. Dunwoody rose —
      Mr. Hind: I am sure the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to reply.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Richard Caborn.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has given way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had given way.
      Mr. Hind: I had given way, Sir.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West has raised some interesting points, not least because Midland Red was competing and using industrial muscle. Is he aware that the National Bus Company has made it clear that if the Bill becomes law one of the first things that will happen is that there will be a 30 per cent. cut in services, and from that moment on it will compete in any way possible with anybody who wishes to run services in the same area? Will he not accept that that will happen and that Hereford gives a clue? Where people are prepared to compete on small town routes there may be more buses initially but that does not mean better services. Now we know that in Hereford the people have worse services than they had previously.
      Mr. Hind: The hon. Lady should consider the name of the office which will oversee this sort of thing; it is the Office of Fair Trading. I take the view that what happened in Hereford and Worcester was unfair trading. The purpose of the new clause is to make sure that the competition is fair. Unlike the Opposition, we do not believe that competition is de facto bad. We see it as the essence of the Bill. I hope that the voters of Hereford and Worcester will remember what has happened. Certainly the competition there was not fair.
      Mr. Caborn: The new clause indicates clearly that the Government are fishing around in regard to competition. The only restrictive practice will be that passengers who hitherto had buses to travel on will no longer have them. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) indicated the philosophy behind the Bill—profitability and fair trading. At no stage did he talk about producing a service for the people, whether in Hereford or anywhere else.
      It should be understood that the basis for the Bill revolved around the Hereford trial area. It has been in force for about two and a half years and has been an unmitigated disaster from every point of view, so much so that when the Tories were trying to sell it to the public in a party political broadcast they had to film two dear old ladies of 30 years' standing in the Tory party.
      Mr. Forth rose —
      Mr. Caborn: I shall give way in a moment.
      We have tried to analyse seriously what is happening in Hereford and in other areas, particularly south Yorkshire. We have never tried to hide the fact that south Yorkshire gets subsidies from central Government but they are being used most responsibly to provide a proper public and integrated transport system, unlike the service in Hereford. If the Government try to include new clause 6 in the Bill they will be doing the people further injustice. It will have considerable effect on the disadvantaged.
      People from the trade unions who came to London to discuss the matter with Back-Bench Tories were appalled
      888
      at the lack of knowledge among hon. Members who will be voting on the Bill. The only conclusion they could reach was that Government Back Benchers, knowing very little about the matter, had been conned either by hon. Members who were on the Committee or by the Government Front Bench. When the implications were spelled out to some of the Back-Bench Tories, they were having different thoughts. Whether they have the guts to go through the Lobby later, we shall see.
      Mr. Matthew Parris: The procedure for referral under the restrictive practices legislation gives ample scope for filtering out complaints of what may seem to be restrictive practices where there is a good argument in the public interest that those practices should take place. I am happy about that, and the House should be happy.
      New clause 6 is a welcome addition to the Bill because it is a better way of filtering out such complaints than clause 55 and subsequent clauses. That clause obliges authorities
      "so to conduct themselves as not to inhibit competition between persons providing or seeking to provide public passenger transport services in their area."
      That would not be determined under the restrictive practices legislation, and the fact that there was a good argument in the public interest for practices that inhibited competition would not be a defence to a charge that an authority had so conducted itself. It is better to do this through restrictive practices legislation than through the ordinary courts in the way envisaged by clause 55 and subsequent clauses. I shall be interested in the reaction of my hon. Friend the Minister.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. David Marshall: The remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) about the decline in public transport were misleading. We all know why people no longer use public transport, and the Bill will do nothing to change that. It will make the situation worse, because people will have less access to public transport.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that agreements between companies can work in the public interest and to the benefit of the companies and their employees. A classic example of this is the situation in Strathclyde, where British Rail, the Scottish Bus Group, the Strathclyde PTE and a number of independent operators are all working in a harmonious relationship. I do not know whether there is a formal agreement or just a gentleman's understanding, but the system works reasonably well.
      Under the new clause, the law of the jungle will prevail. The Scottish Bus Group has already made its attitude clear. It will compete by whatever means it takes to maintain and increase its share of the market. The big strong company will, in many cases, eliminate the small independent companies, some of which have been long established. There will be a further increase in the ever-growing number of companies that go bankrupt under the Government's policies. The companies and their employees will suffer. I see no benefit from the new clause. Therefore, I shall join my hon. Friends in opposing it.
      Mr. David Mitchell: The House should be indebted to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for

      889
      his intervention because he drew attention to what he referred to as pedal power—those who move about by bicycle. Unfortunately, he misread the document to which he was referring. Table 1 of the White Paper on buses shows that travel by pedal cycle went up from 4 billion passenger kilometres in 1973 to 5 billion in 1983, an increase of 25 per cent. That increase has been due to the deterioration of the availability of buses under the existing system—one of the profound reasons why we have had to introduce this legislation.
      The increase in the number of people using bicycles is a mirror image of the decline of 28 per cent. in bus passenger numbers over the past decade, reflected in the huge decline in the number of jobs in the bus industry. That should be a cause of concern to the hon. Member and his hon. Friends.
      The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that the Government were in a muddle. It is not the Government who are in a muddle, but the hon. Lady. She said that two operators who harmlessly co-ordinate their services will be caught by the provisions of the new clause, but they will not. I referred specifically to the problems that would arise if the case involved rigging fares or areas of service, or dividing up the market between operators. Even then, it has to be shown that such practices are against the public interest. Therefore, the hon. Lady is quite mistaken in her perception of the effect of this new clause.
      Planned interchanges are beneficial and it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to decide in the first instance what is significant in the terms of that phrase, which I used in my earlier explanation of the purpose of the new clause.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman saying in effect that such decisions, which will have major implications for transport planning, are to be left entirely to the director general and that he will suddenly find himself constituting a detailed court of transport planning?
      Mr. Mitchell: Almost all the industry is subject to the Office of Fair Trading and the legislation surrounding it. We are taking away the special, privileged position of the bus industry and making it like any other industry, in that it has to compete, and compete without cartelisation, price rigging and the other practices with which this new clause seeks to deal. The hon. Lady claimed that this was a hilarious new clause to introduce, but she gave no explanation of why it is hilarious to apply to the bus industry that which applies to all the industries in which hon. Members worked before they came here.
      The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) claimed that two operators would be at risk for providing alternative services. In assessing the significance of any particular agreement, the director general will take a pragmatic approach. Clearly, the sort of practices about which the hon. Gentleman was referring will not get anybody into trouble.
      The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) asked what brought about the train of thought that led to the introduction of the new clause at this stage. Partly, it was brought about by listening to Labour Members in Committee. That led us to recognise that many of them
      890
      were deep adherents to the concept of cartelisation and putting the public and the passenger low on the list of priorities.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: What an abuse. The Minister should come to south Yorkshire.
      Mr. Mitchell: I shall be happy to deal with the hon. Member and south Yorkshire at an appropriate moment. I am not sure that now is an appropriate moment, but if the hon. Gentleman makes a speech I am perfectly happy to reply to it.
      Mr. Flannery: Come to south Yorkshire.
      Mr. Mitchell: I have been to south Yorkshire. I shall happily reply to any point the hon. Gentleman makes because south Yorkshire is one of our major problems.
      The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) talked about removing the power of local government to decide the level of subsidy. He knows that one thing. the Bill does in cross-subsidisation is take away from the bus operators their allocation of subsidies and put it into the hands of the local authority, which will decide which routes are necessary and which are not. There will be a new responsibility for local government and a new opportunity to co-ordinate looking after the public interest.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) dealt trenchantly with the case for competition, and I welcome his support.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) asked particularly about the predatory pricing policies pursued by Midland Red in the trial area of Hereford and Worcester. The Competition Act will apply to deal with such a situation. The Director General of Fair Trading, in fulfilment of his powers under the Competition Act, is empowered to discuss with the parties, and if not satisfied to bring action against, any such activities.
      It is a great pity in many ways that that part of the law was not brought to bear in the case of Hereford and Worcester. Had it been brought to bear, the number of new competitors would possibly be greater and doing well, because Midland Red could have been stopped by means of the Competition Act 1980. Nobody sems to have recognised that fact. I am glad of the opportunity to say that if in future anybody seeks to copy Midland Red by introducing predatory pricing to drive out competition, he will face the full weight of the Competition Act.
      Mr. Craigen: The independent bus operators in Scotland are also concerned about the speed of action, lest they should go out of business before the Office of Fair Trading can dispose of their case. Will the Under-Secretary comment on that aspect of the interim interdict that is available under Scottish law, so that a breathing space can be made available to companies facing the situation that he described?
      Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friends who come from north of the border inform me that the position is exactly the same as with the injunction procedure. Although I am of Scottish extraction, I am not resident in Scotland, so it would be dangerous if I tried to interpret Scottish law. However, I am assured on good authority that that is the case. I am interested to note the implicit support of the hon. Member for Maryhill for the Government's new clause. He has expressed anxiety that it will not be applied quickly enough. Therefore, he ought to join us in the Lobby if there is a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 153.

      Division No. 215]

      [5.45 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fallon, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Farr, Sir John

      Amess, David

      Favell, Anthony

      Ancram, Michael

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Arnold, Tom

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Forth, Eric

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Franks, Cecil

      Baldry, Tony

      Freeman, Roger

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Freud, Clement

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fry, Peter

      Beggs, Roy

      Gale, Roger

      Beith, A. J.

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Benyon, William

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gorst, John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Greenway, Harry

      Blackburn, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Grylls, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Boysoa Dr Rhodes

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hannam, John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Bright, Graham

      Harris, David

      Brinton, Tim

      Harvey, Robert

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Browne, John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Hawksley, Warren

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hayes, J.

      Budgen, Nick

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hayward, Robert

      Burt, Alistair

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butcher, John

      Henderson, Barry

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Hickmet, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Hirst, Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cartwright, John

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Cash, William

      Holt, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hordern, Peter

      Churchill, W. S.

      Howard, Michael

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

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Howells, Geraint

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Coombs, Simon

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Cope, John

      Irving, Charles

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jackson, Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Crouch, David

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Dicks, Terry

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kennedy, Charles

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Dover, Den

      Key, Robert

      Dunn, Robert

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Durant, Tony

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Eggar, Tim

      Knox, David

      Evennett, David

      Lamont, Norman

      892

      Latham, Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Raffan, Keith

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Rathbone, Tim

      Lester, Jim

      Renton, Tim

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Lightbown, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Lilley, Peter

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lord, Michael

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Luce, Richard

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      McCrindle, Robert

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Rowe, Andrew

      MacGregor, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Maclean, David John

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Madel, David

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Major, John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Malone, Gerald

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Maples, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Marland, Paul

      Sims, Roger

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Mather, Carol

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Speed, Keith

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Merchant, Piers

      Steen, Anthony

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stern, Michael

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Sumberg, David

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, Donald (Caider V)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thurnham, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Tracey, Richard

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Neale, Gerrard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Needham, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Neubert, Michael

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Normanton, Tom

      Wallace, James

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Watson, John

      Osborn, Sir John

      Watts, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wheeler, John

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Parris, Matthew

      Wood, Timothy

      Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Pawsey, James

      Yeo, Tim

      Pollock, Alexander

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Porter, Barry

      Portillo, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

      Mr. Peter Lloyd and

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Mr. Ian Lang.

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Buchan, Norman

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Caborn, Richard

      Barnett, Guy

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Campbell, Ian

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Blair, Anthony

      Clay, Robert

      Boyes, Roland

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      893

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cohen, Harry

      McWilliam, John

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Marek, Dr John

      Corbett, Robin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Martin, Michael

      Cowans, Harry

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Craigen, J. M.

      Maxton, John

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Meacher, Michael

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

      Michie, William

      Deakins, Eric

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Dewar, Donald

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dixon, Donald

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dobson, Frank

      Nellist, David

      Dormand, Jack

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Dubs, Alfred

      O'Brien, William

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Eastham, Ken

      Park, George

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Faulds, Andrew

      Pike, Peter

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Prescott, John

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Radice, Giles

      Fisher, Mark

      Randall, Stuart

      Flannery, Martin

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Forrester, John

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Foster, Derek

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Foulkes, George

      Robertson, George

      Fraser, J, (Norwood)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Rooker, J. W.

      George, Bruce

      Rowlands, Ted

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Ryman, John

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Golding, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Gould, Bryan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Haynes, Frank

      Smith, C. (lsl'ton S & F'bury)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Snape, Peter

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Soley, Clive

      Home Robertson, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Strang, Gavin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Straw, Jack

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      John, Brynmor

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Tinn, James

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Wareing, Robert

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Weetch, Ken

      Lamond, James

      Welsh, Michael

      Leighton, Ronald

      White, James

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Litherland, Robert

      Wilson, Gordon

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Winnick, David

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Loyden, Edward

      McCartney, Hugh

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Mr. Sean Hughes and

      McKelvey, William

      Dr. Roger Thomas.

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      LONDON TAXI AND TAXI DRIVER LICENSING: APPEALS
      '.℄(1) In this section℄
      "licence" means a licence under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (taxi licences) or under section 8 of that Act (taxi driver licences); and
      "licensing authority" means the person empowered to grant a licence.
      (2) Where the licensing authority has refused to grant, or has suspended or revoked, a licence the applicant for, or (as the case may be) holder of. the licence may, before the expiry of the prescribed period℄

      (a) require the authority to reconsider his decision: or

      (b) appeal to a magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which he resides.

      (3) Any call for a reconsideration under subsection (2) above must be made to the licensing authority in writing.
      (4) On any reconsideration under this section the person calling for the decision to be reconsidered shall be entitled to be heard either in person or by his representative.
      (5) If the person calling for a decision to be reconsidered under this secton is dissatisfied with the decision of the licensing authority on reconsideration, he may. before the expiry of the prescribed period, appeal to a magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which he resides.
      (6) On any appeal to it under this section, a magistrates' court may make such order as it thinks fit; and any order which it makes shall be binding on the licensing authority.
      (7) Where a person holds a licence which is in force when he applies for a new licence in substitution for it, the existing licence shall continue in force until the application for the new licence, or any appeal under this section in relation to that application, is disposed of.
      (8) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, where the licensing authority refuses to grant the new licence the application shall not be treated as disposed of℄

      (a) where no call for a reconsideration of the authority's decision is made under subsection (2) above, until the expiry of the prescribed period;

      (b) where such a reconsideration is called for, until the expiry of the prescribed period which begins by reference to the decision of the authority on reconsideration.

      (9) Where the licensing authority suspends or revokes a licence, or confirms a decision to do so, he may, if the holder of the licence so requests, direct that his decision shall not have effect until the expiry of the prescribed period.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause gives a right of appeal against the taxi licensing decisions of the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police. The London taxi trade has wanted that for a long time and I feel sure that on this matter at least the House will agree that it is unjust that any authority should have the power to deny or remove the livelihood of a cab driver without there being a right of appeal. Elsewhere in England, Wales and Scotland there is a right of appeal against the decisions of taxi licensing authorities.
      The assistant commissioner has said that he would welcome the establishment of a right of appeal against his decisions, as it would remove from him the burden of having the final say on whether a cab driver should be allowed to continue to make a living.
      The House will see that the appeal procedure proposed in the new clause is similar to the one that exists for decisions by the traffic commissioner on PSV drivers' licences. There will be a period following a decision by the assistant commissioner during which an appeal may be made. The aggrieved party may require the assistant commissioner to reconsider his decision and will have the right to be heard personally. Alternatively, or if he remains dissatisfied with the decision or reconsideration, he may appeal to a magistrates court. The decision of the court shall be binding on the assistant commissioner.
      Where a case involves the revocation or suspension of an existing licence, the assistant commissioner may, if the

      895
      holder requests it, direct that his decision will not have effect until the expiry of the appeal period or, if an appeal is made, until it has been disposed of.
      Although we shall be reviewing all the Victorian, somewhat complex and certainly archaic taxi legislation, the new clause removes a genuine grievance which, I am sure the House will agree, should be corrected now.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: This is a sensible provision, not least because so much of the Bill which affects taxis is neither sensible nor properly thought out. It has been an anomaly for a long time that the taxi trade in London has not had a right of appeal, and I accept what the Minister says about the protection that this provision will provide.
      I assume that the trade has had detailed consultation with the Minister and that it is satisfied with the provision. After all, there are so many changes in the Bill that it is helpful to be able to welcome one of them that is a positive improvement rather than a retrograde step.
      For example, let me draw attention to an article in the Evening Advertiser on Thursday 11 April which should be of interest to the Secretary of State. It says:
      "Cab war is in store".
      It goes on to say:
      "A taxi war is brewing in Cirencester, with warnings of trouble and chaos from cab drivers. The row is over the taxi spaces in the market place. Three owner-drivers have operated from the rank for the last 15 years as the Cirencester Taxi Rank Association."
      One wonders whether they have consulted the Secretary of State and whether they had a better reception than those people who were talking about losing their only buses into Cirencester early in the morning.
      The article goes on:
      "The three drivers are furious because they had to buy into the Association when they joined. Denis Gill said: 'It cost us £1,000 when we came here. The telephone and sign were all paid for by the Association.' Fellow cabby Mike Goddard said: 'This letter from the council means that anyone can just come here and operate as a taxi. Its going to be chaos. You could get up to 18 motors fighting for the two spaces.' The Market Place drivers have already had one confrontation with drivers from Cirencester radio cabs who produced the council's letter and then parked on the rank."
      The reality of much of the Bill that refers to taxis is that there will be precisely that kind of punch-up. It is only rough justice that it should be happening in the constituency of the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the thought, if there is any, behind it and for a mad commitment to the opposite of transport planning, which, in his case, seems to represent transport chaos. He is responsible for the absolute shambles that will occur not just in the taxi trade but also in the bus trade if the Bill becomes law.
      Cab war in Cirencester will be followed by bus war, followed by general chaos. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not misunderstand me when I tell him that I hope that his information about taxi legislation is more accurate than his information about the Blackpool trams.
      Having said that, we happily welcome any provision that will give an appeal procedure to taxi drivers, who, in any event, will be badly affected.
      6 pm
      Mr. Vivian Bendall: I gather that the new clause deals with a right of appeal for taxi drivers in London and has nothing to do with Cirencester. This
      896
      provision is long overdue. When I came to the House in 1978 I began campaigning for London taxi drivers to have a right of appeal against the revoking of licences.
      There can be few instances in our legislation —indeed, in our very constitution—where people do not have a right of appeal. This measure rectifies an anomaly that has been in existence for perhaps 300 years, going back well before the Carriage Acts of last century.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Did the hon. Gentleman intend in due course to declare his interest in the taxi trade? Although we are in agreement on this issue, he will appreciate that, as a general rule, hon. Members should know when those among us are speaking for particular groups of people.
      Mr. Bendall: If I need to declare an interest in the taxi trade, I do so, although I have said repeatedly in the House when challenged by Opposition Members on the same point that I have no financial arrangement with, or receive any inducement from, the licensed taxi trade. I assure the hon. Lady that if I did have such an advantage, I should have declared it in the proper quarter.
      I congratulate the Minister on correcting an anomaly that has existed for far too long. It is greatly welcomed by the London taxi trade. The new clause has been introduced after full consultation with representatives of that trade, for which I thank my right hon. Friend. This legislation will bring the licensed taxi trade into line with the position as it should be in a democratic society.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) for his kind remarks and, unusually, I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for her comment about this being a sensible provision. She went on to spoil it by quoting something in connection with Cirencester, an area which has nothing to do with the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police. The hon. Lady accused me of being inaccurate. She put before the House one of the most inaccurate pieces of geography imaginable. However, I suspect that we are in agreement on this issue.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION IN TRAVEL CONCESSION SCHEMES
      '(1) Arrangements made in pursuance of a travel concession scheme under section 85 of this Act with any operator of a registered local service qualifying for fuel duty grant may require the operator to give notice, of such length and in such manner as may be provided by the arrangements, before withdrawing from participation in the scheme.

      (2) Subject to subsection (5) below, where arrangements so made include such a requirement, the operator in question shall be obliged to provide travel concessions in accordance with the arrangements until he gives notice of withdrawal in accordance with the arrangements and the period of notice has expired

      (3) The authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme may at any time by notice in writing served on any operator of a registered local service qualifying for fuel duty grant (including an operator already participating in the scheme) impose on him an obligation to participate in the scheme in respect of any such service operated by him to which the notice applies, to be effective as from a date immediately following the end of such period as may be specified in the notice.

      A notice under this subsection is referred to below in this section and in sections (Further provisions with respect to participation notices) and (Supplementary provisions) of this Act as a participation notice.
      (4) Subject to subsection (5) below and section (Further provisions with respect to participation notices) of this Act, where a participation notice is served on any such operator, he shall be obliged, as from the date immediately following the end of the period specified in the notice in accordance with subsection (3) above, to provide any travel concessions required by the scheme on journeys on any service to which the notice applies either—

      (a) in accordance with any arrangements agreed between that operator and the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme before that date; or

      (b) in default of any such agreement, in accordance with the arrangements currently applicable to reimbursement of operators participating in the scheme or to any class of such operators to which that operator belongs.

      (5) An obligation imposed on any operator by subsection (2) or (4) above shall, except as provided by the following provisions of this section, cease to apply in relation to that operator by virtue of the requirement mentioned in subsection (2) above or (as the case may be) by virtue of the participation notice mentioned in subsection (4) above if, following—

      (a) in a case within subsection (2) above, the making of the arrangements including that requirement; or

      (b) in a case within subsection (4) above, the date there mentioned;

      there is any variation of the travel concession scheme in question or of the arrangements applicable to reimbursement of operators participating in the scheme or to any class of such operators to which that operator belongs.
      (6) Where it is proposed—

      (a) to vary a scheme under section 85 of this Act; or

      (b) to vary the arrangements for the time being applicable to reimbursement of operators participating in any such scheme or of any class of such operators which consists of or includes operators of registered local services qualifying for fuel duty grant;

      the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme may, not less than such period before the variation is to take effect as may be prescribed, by notice served on any operator of any such service who is eligible to participate in the scheme require him to indicate, within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, whether or not he is willing to participate or (as the case may be) to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect.
      (7) Where in pursuance of subsection (6) above an operator indicates that he is willing to participate or (as the case may be) to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect, that variation shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (5) above.
      (8) Where the authority responsible for administration of a scheme under section 85 of this Act is a Passenger Transport Executive, the exercise by the Executive of the power to serve a participation notice on any operator shall require the consent of the Passenger Transport Authority for the Executive's area.'. — [Mr. Ridley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following: New clause 11 — Further provisions with respect to participation notices.
      New clause 10— Supplementary provisions.
      New clause 16 — Enforcement of participation in travel concession schemes.
      Government amendments Nos. 96, 99, 100, 101, 103 and 111.
      Mr. Ridley: In Committee, a number of hon. Members expressed concern that there should be a mechanism available to local authorities in cases where they considered that the participation of an operator in a concessionary fares scheme was necessary but that operator was unwilling or downright recalcitrant. The Government appreciated that the purely voluntary participation of operators might in some cases leave gaps in the coverage of schemes whose benefits ought to be available either more widely or throughout their area.
      We undertook to bring forward amendments on Report to honour our commitment to give councils a discretionary power to insist that operators should opt in unless, through some special appeal mechanism, good reason could be shown why they should not. Some Opposition Members greeted our reaffirmation of this commitment with the utmost scepticism. But today the mechanism is before us, and it will be interesting to see whether the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) acknowledges that we have delivered.
      Under these new clauses, an authority may serve notice on recalcitrant operators, who will be bound to provide the travel concessions required. The clauses also give authorities powers to require operators who are participating voluntarily to give advance notice of any intention of withdrawal. This will allow authorities to ensure continuity of provision by serving a notice obliging continued participation. There is also a mechanism for the operator to apply to me or my successors, on grounds which are quite specific. to have the notice cancelled.
      I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that it would be wrong to compel operators to enter into arrangements which were onerous, inappropriate or unfair. If the Secretary of State finds that the terms of the scheme or of reimbursement are inappropriate, not just for the appellant but for all operators in that position, he must spell out the aspects of the scheme which led him to that view.
      New clause 16 makes it a criminal offence for an operator who is under an obligation—perhaps having appealed, or perhaps not—to provide concessions to fail systematically to do so. If an operator accepts a participation notice, or if the Secretary of State determines that it should take effect, he cannot be allowed then to refuse with impunity to provide the travel concessions.
      I hope that all hon. Members are now satisfied that we have kept our word and that they will support these amendments. I hope, too, that this will bring to an end the insinuation or scurrilous rumours that have been spread by Labour supporters that concessionary fares schemes will come to an end or in some way be affected by the Bill. They are affected by the Bill in that they are made more comprehensive on all operators. To have acknowledgement of that from Labour Members would give my hon. Friends and I great pleasure.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The new clauses and associated amendments arise out of a commitment given by the Secretary of State in Committee in March, when he said:
      "It should be a matter of opting out of the scheme rather than opting in, Therefore, I undertake to table an amendment, or possibly a new clause, on Report to meet that requirement".— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 March 1985; c. 668.]
      We have four new clauses and a number of amendments, the net effect of which is to place on the statute book a great deal of verbiage which barely conceals the Secretary of State's reluctance to give effect to his undertaking.
      Mr. Ridley: Shame
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The spirit of the Secretary of State's comments about concessionary fares is exemplified by the fact that subsection (1) of new clause 9, which is entitled
      "Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes",
      specifies that schemes may lay down conditions and that the operator may withdraw, which is hardly what we would call an enthusiastic and positive approach. Subsection (2) goes on to say:
      "where arrangements so made include such a requirement, the operator in question shall be obliged to provide travel concessions in accordance with the arrangements until he gives notice of withdrawal"
      That seems to be a "put up with the children, the elderly and the disabled until you find an excuse not to do so" attitude.
      Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Lady at this early stage put us out of our misery and tell us whether she will thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for bringing forward this measure which was requested in Committee? We are waiting to hear whether the hon. Lady welcomes its inclusion in the Bill.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand the hon. Gentleman's passion to know what I think about these matters, so I shall do my best to satisfy his interest. The Secretary of State did not want to bring this concession forward. He has brought forward a small concession and still has not answered the real question concerning the funding of these schemes. We have been offered a poor substitute for the proper concessionary fare schemes which are applied by many local authorities who believe that such schemes are not a way of filling empty seats when it happens to suit the operator. Many people in local government and throughout the country see concessionary fare schemes as a means of changing the lives of those most in need of the freedom to travel, including the elderly and the disabled —those in need of the right to get out of their homes and not feel trapped by their poverty or inability to move about.
      I am thinly convinced that not only the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) but the Secretary of State regard concessionary fare schemes as an irritation which they have had to consider because of the pressure put on them in Committee. The clauses which have now been brought forward do not show that, even at this late stage, the Government are prepared to discuss seriously how the schemes should be funded or to say that their suggestions will be an adequate alternative to what exists.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire may regard it as a political point for me to say that I am not flinging myself upon the kindness of the Secretary of State and saying how grateful I am to him for the crumbs that fall from his rich table. I shall explain why. Concessionary fares should be provided to people as a right. They have contributed to the economy throughout their working lives, and they have the right to be able to move about, not to be subjected to a substitute scheme under which they receive any old token that happens to be available from an authority which can manage to scrape up sufficient funds from its rate-capped finances to provide an alternative. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire does not like that point. That confirms me in my view that what we are offered is inadequate.
      Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Lady therefore tell the House the Labour party's plans for the concessionary fare
      900
      schemes, the level at which she would like them imposed and the mechanism that she would use to impose them? Will she not just wrongly criticise what the Government are doing but state her alternatives?
      Mrs. Dunwoody: If the Secretary of State would like to listen to the rest of my speech, he might discover what I think is wrong with his legislation.
      Mr. Ridley: Oh.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: "Oh," says the Secretary of Sate. Even though the Labour party might find itself at the end of two years with no public transport system of any size to talk about, he thinks that Labour Members should today say, "We can somehow weld the independent operators into a scheme that will provide concessionary fares." I shall give the Secretary of State one undertaking. I hope that he will accept it because it is meant in the kindest way. I believe in public transport. I use it, and I know what it means to those who are unable to afford a motor car or to those who are but do not always have one available. A Labour Government will restore a public transport system to this country because the Labour party understands the importance of such a system and would not simply look at it in terms of the cost of the bus subsidy. A Labour Government would look at transport questions in wider social ways, not merely in terms of the cash implications.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Ridley: It really will not do for the hon. Lady to dodge the question that I asked her and to answer unspecifically a completely different one which has nothing to do with the subject we are debating — concessionary fares. I asked her whether her party will in this legislation or in a wider context change the arrangements that this Government have made. The hon. Lady had dodged that question by saying that it is not really for her to say, two years before an election, what she would do. After criticising this Government's actions, the hon. Lady should state the way in which she would change the schemes.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: It is clear that the Secretary of State is frightened that we are actually discussing his concessionary fares, because he does not want to talk about what his legislation states. I repeat: in two years from now, we may not have a public transport system that is recognisable by that name. My party intends when in government to set up concessionary fare schemes that will restore to the elderly, the disabled and those most in need a scheme that genuinely allows them to travel freely. If that means going back to proper passes, and not the absurdity of tokens and insisting on inadequate schemes of the type that will inevitably arise from the chaos and nonsense entailed by the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will find that the general public will rapidly understand the difference between our proposals and what he plans.
      Mr. Harry Cowans: My hon. Friend should remind the Secretary of State that we are questioning his legislation. She should ask him why his Government saw fit to undertake to underwrite concessionary fares in the London Regional Transport Bill. Perhaps she will also ask him why, in the grant-related expenditure, 50 per cent. is the level of concessionary fares. Is that the Government's standard?
      Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend reminds us of the basic point that the Secretary of State was forced by

      901
      London Members to write in an undertaking to protect concessionary fares in that earlier Bill. I do not know for how many sittings the House considered this point or how many words were spoken on it in Committee, but it must have been a great many. Not once was the Secretary of State prepared to give an undertaking in this legislation that he would underwrite concessionary fares. Not once was he prepared to write into this Bill a similar guarantee to the one that he wrote into the London Regional Transport Bill. The reason is simple—he did not intend the rest of the country to have proper concessionary fares schemes. The right hon. Gentleman knows that.
      Mr. Don Dixon: Although the Secretary of State did not give that undertaking in Committee, his hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) gave the game away when he suggested that the Tory policy on concessionary fares was for bus companies to make a profit before considering granting concessionary fares to the old and disabled. Before these private entrepreneurs can deal with the disabled or the old, they must first make a profit. Under the Government's policy during the next two years, until all these entrepreneurs make a profit, the disabled, the blind and the old-age pensioners will be prisoners in their homes.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: There is no doubt that this is the thought behind the whole of the Government's attitude towards concessionary fare schemes. The concession was given reluctantly. It was not a genuine underwriting of concessionary fares. The Secretary of State has never been prepared to discuss the fact that it will be extremely difficult for rate-capped authorities to find the money necessary for genuine concessionary fare schemes. He has never discussed the financial implications, preferring to say that this is a matter for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      Mr. Ridley: I have asked the hon. Lady twice what her policy is and the rather pathetic attempts of the hon. Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) do not obscure the point. The hon. Lady went so far as to say that a Labour Government would enable elderly people to travel "freely", but she did not say that they would travel free. Why is she so shy about answering my question? The only conclusion that one can draw is that she is not prepared to go one inch beyond the Government's position.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am flattered that the right hon. Gentleman regards my undertakings as so much more genuine and real than his own. He may not be Secretary of State next year, let alone for another two years. [Interruption.] Let us not be too unkind. He may make it to the autumn but not far beyond that, especially once this legislation becomes law. The effects of the Bill will be so wide ranging that we may have to create an entirely new public transport system, but if the Secretary of State is so worried I will give this undertaking. A Labour Government would regard the provision of concessionary fare schemes as one of the first priorities in transport policy. That is as firm as anyone can expect me to be at this stage. Unlike the Secretary of State, however, I can give a further guarantee. Under a Labour Government there will be a public transport system for old-age
      902
      pensioners to travel on. The right hon. Gentleman has been careful not to claim that that will be the case after two years of the chaos and bewilderment that will inevitably result from this legislation.
      Let us now consider the right hon. Gentleman's new clause, which he is anxious to obscure even further. Subsection (3) finally reaches the original objective—an authority may require an operator to participate in a concessionary fares schemes by serving a participation notice upon him. Participation notices are dealt with in new clause 11. New clause 10 provides the framework. Some authorities are very worried about the way in which this insistence will work. It is a pity that there is no blackboard, as I have a marvellous flow chart showing what will happen. It is clear that some authorities will have to go through the most complicated procedure if they want to operate a concessionary fare scheme under clause 85. I shall not bother the House with all the highly complex implications, but it will certainly not be simple to produce a workable, sensible scheme with a number of different operators. Inevitably, those most in need of concessionary passes will be affected by that.
      The Secretary of State has created an extremely complex appeals procedure. As he is so keen to answer questions, perhaps he will tell us why the traffic commissioners, rather than the Secretary of State, cannot act in disputes as arbiters between local authorities and operators. The commissioners will have that role in relation to traffic regulation conditions — a matter in which they are arguably less expert.
      Subsection (4) provides that an operator is to provide concessions in accordance with his individual agreement or with any general conditions applying to this scheme, unless subsection (5) applies and the operator has managed to find a way out of the scheme altogether. That being so, it is scarcely surprising that we do not regard this as the best thing since sliced bread.
      Subsection (6) allows an operator, on receiving notice of a variation, to find yet another way out. Subsection (7) provides that if an operator
      "is willing to participate or … to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect"
      the cop-out in subsection (5) will not apply.
      Subsection (8) requires the passenger transport authority to give its consent to the passenger transport executive before a participation notice is served. Presumably the Secretary of State believes that there is just a chance that the executive will have misinterpreted the authority's policy on concessionary fares and he wishes to give the operator further protection from the dreaded participation notice.
      In Committee, the Secretary of State dredged up the word "otiose", meaning redundant and unnecessary, to describe some of the legislation that he had been sitting on for years. Much of what is said in the new clauses is also otiose. Despite the grudging attitude that they display, however, there is no option but to accept that half a loaf is better than no bread. Nevertheless, we should make it clear who will be affected. In the six metropolitan counties alone, more than 1· million people are covered by concessionary travel arrangements. Pensioners travel free of charge at off-peak times in four of the metropolitan counties and travel passes are provided. In Greater Manchester and in west Yorkshire they travel at half fare or at a flat rate throughout the day. The physically disabled

      903
      are entitled to similar concessions throughout the day and the blind travel free throughout the day in all metropolitan counties.
      Concessionary travel payments for 1984–85 are expected to exceed £100 million — almost half the aggregate VLS. Widely differing methods apply to the calculation of concessionary travel payments. Greater Manchester will be required to find between £12 million and 14 million. Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that a rate-capped authority will be able to make good a gap of that size? Of course he is not. What he really intends is clear from the figures that he has given for the amount to be spent on transport this year. He intends that there should be a direct cut in the amount available. He knows that authorities will find it extremely difficult to underwrite the sums required by the changes proposed in the Bill. Any authority or group of authorities can establish travel concesssion schemes, but they will find it very difficult to fund them and many existing schemes will be severely damaged.
      Throughout our discussions on the Bill, the Secretary of State has said that it is entirely up to the local authority to decide not just on the type of scheme but on the way in which it is administered. Even with the minimal conditions included in the Bill, it is clear that, instead of useful bus passes and access to transport almost all day, many people will suddenly be offered an inferior system. It may involve tokens, which are easily used up and do not allow as many journeys as the present passes. In addition, the provision currently made by the larger authorities may well not be replaced when individual operators take over the services and, due to their size, cannot provide the same type of scheme or even the same kind of vehicle.
      I do not believe that the new clauses genuinely undenvrite the type of scheme required by the elderly and the disabled. At best, they are a smokescreen for the Secretary of State, who did not want to write anything into the Bill. He could easily have given an undertaking to ensure continuation of the present level of concessionary fare schemes, but, for one simple reason, he did not want to do that. To him, transport is simply a matter of pounds, shillings and pence and concessionary passes are merely a way to provide, grudgingly, a lower standard of service when it suits him and at times when he cannot get enough fare-paying passengers. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made that clear in Committee. To the Conservative Government, concessionary fare schemes are an indulgence and an extravagance, and should be abolished.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Dixon: In fairness to the Secretary of State, will my hon. Friend acknowledge one point? When the question about private operators taking part in the scheme was first raised in Committee—it was raised by some Conservative Members as well as by my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends — the Secretary of State suggested that the private entrepreneurs should not pick up the old-age pensioners and the disabled, in case the prospect of a full load of full fares should be jeopardised, and that a ghost service should be run alongside to pick them up. The present suggestion, although wholly inadequate, is a massive improvement on the original one.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I accept that. However, there is no provision for the mentally handicapped, and throughout
      904
      the Committee stage the Secretary of State consistently refused to accept many of the amendments that would have dealt with the problems of the disabled. It is clear that adequate schemes will be replaced by token schemes. The Bill in no way provides a proper service for the disabled or for those most in need.
      Mr. Anthony Steen: Surely the hon. Lady is not suggesting a special bus service for the mentally handicapped. Of course one must provide services for those less fortunate than the very fit and healthy, but surely the hon. Lady is not suggesting that there should be a special bus service for all the disadvantaged.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Listening to the hon. Member for South Hams one would not believe that he had been a member of the Committee. Even though he appeared only briefly after dinner from time to time, I would have thought that even he was present when we debated at great length the changes that would have to be made to the Bill to safeguard the interests of the disabled. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman should try to divert attention away from the complete inadequacy of the scheme.
      Mr. Flannery: I am familiar with the sheer arrogance and contempt of the Secretary of State. I once described him—he has got worse since then—as the only hon. Member in the House who could strut sitting. We are falling far behind when even the poverty-stricken Republic of Ireland has concessionary fares on everything except aircraft. Many countries are miles ahead of us. Even the Labour party should take note of that. The Government will take us back a long way. I do not know how they can defend what they are doing. We tried private enterprise and it failed. That is why we municipalised and nationalised public transport.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State knows exactly what he is doing. He has given us figures. In case anyone missed them, I will repeat them. The public expenditure White Paper shows a reduction in actual expenditure on concessionary fares from £245 million in 1984–85 to £197 million planned for 1985–86. That is almost 20 per cent.
      Mr. Ridley rose —
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Public transport in metropolitan areas will be rate-capped. It is clear that there will be a reduction in the availability of concessionary fares in metropolitan areas.
      Mr. Ridley: If I may say so, that is a piece of deliberate deception. The true figures are as follows: for 1982–83, a provision of £163 million; for 1983–84, £173 million; for 1984–85, £188·5 million, and for 1985–86, £197 million. There is an ever-increasing total. The outturn in each case is greater than the provision, but the hon. Lady compared the provision with the outturn. She did not say that she was confusing the figures. I invite her to withdraw what can only be described as a deliberate deception.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State should tell us himself what the changes were. Let him give us the figures. They are his figures. They were produced by his Department.
      Concessionary fares will suffer under the Bill. There has been a slight concession. If the operators cannot find a way out—and, by heaven, there are enough ways of

      905
      getting out of the schemes if the determination exists to do so—the independent operators will have to comply. In no way will that concession protect the public. When travel conditions deteriorate, the public will make its judgment.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The House might well wish to award to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) an Oscar for outrage. Her response to the new clauses is as ungracious and mealy-mouthed as it could be.
      The hon. Lady has tried to play down the contribution made by the Secretary of State in Committee. It has become evident from the hon. Lady's speeches throughout the four months of the debates on the Bill that she knows very little about public transport. When referring to the Secretary of State's undertaking, she omitted to recall that he had said:
      "I am not resisting the principle of the amendment— I would undertake to meet the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendment"— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 March 1985; c. 668.]
      If the hon. Lady had mentioned that, she might have received a different response from the House.
      Much later in the Standing Committee proceedings we debated clause 85, and this humble Member suggested a five-line amendment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave us a full undertaking. Indeed, I was able to say that I could not have wished for a more fulsome undertaking. Some Labour Members did not understand the word "fulsome", so I had to spell it out.
      Conservative Members are very grateful for the way in which the matter has been handled. However, I thought that I had said in five lines what was necessary. That what was said in five lines in Committee now requires 150 lines demonstrates what fun the parliamentary draftsmen and the lawyers have in this place.
      The hon. Lady has made considerable play of the value of concessionary fares in general, but she has failed to respond to the Secretary of State's request for her own specific views. We became used to that in Committee. Our understanding is that concessionary fares — whether tokens, passes, or off-peak passes — currently vary between £20 and £80 in value from the most generous to the least generous authority that offers them. The fair city of Nottingham seems to take a central place in terms of its generosity as well as geographically. Our concessionary fares scheme—free pass, off-peak—is currently valued at £48.
      Perhaps in this case one could speak of a blanket subsidy, although blanket benefit may be the better phrase. A blanket benefit may be described as generous, but it usually means that those who are in need do not get enough while those who are not in need receive a benefit that they could do without. Conservative Members have often been worried about such benefits. This, however, is one of those benefits which satisfy everybody. It confers a benefit and fulfils the needs of a group of people who, as the hon. Lady said, can claim to be entitled to it, at a value that I doubt any Chancellor of the Exchequer could equal.
      For less than £1 a week, we can give senior citizens in greater Nottingham the mobility of which the hon. Lady spoke so passionately. There is no way in which the Chancellor, by giving pensioners an extra £1 a week, could confer such a benefit. Even in our fairly compact city, £1
      906
      a week in cash would mean that somebody who lives comparatively close to the centre of Nottingham could make three or four return journeys a week whereas somebody who lives further out might be able to make only one. The system is excellent value for money and benefits senior citizens. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for accepting the spirit of the amendment that we tabled in Committee. I could not have wished for a more fulsome undertaking from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
      It is right that the Bill does not set down a mechanism by which concessionary travel should be provided. I am satisfied that the system will vary in different parts of the country. I believe fervently in the concessionary pass system, but there are parts of the country for which the token system is better. It is right, therefore, that local authorities should be allowed to choose a system that suits local needs. Local authorities and operators must be able to fix the value of a pass clearly and fairly.
      Mr. Steen: I should merely like to repeat what I said in Committee. Neither side of the House has a monopoly on compassion. The proposals for concessionary fares are as fair as possible and it is wrong for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to imply that it is the Labour party's prerogative to protect the weak and the handicapped. New clause 9 gives such groups as much protection as they had before.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party seems also to believe that if it bobs up and down and tables new clauses saying that if would provide this, that and the other, it has expressed its sincerity. Labour Members know full well that what matters is the practicality, not the volume of words used.
      6.45 pm
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) that it was he who said that, before concessionary fares should be offered to the elderly, independent operators would have to make a profit? It was he who said that, much as such operators would want to help the elderly, they would have to make a profit before being able to consider them. How many of the areas where no concessionary fares are provided are Conservative controlled?
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It was monstrous that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) was criticised in his absence from the Committee—
      Mrs. Dunwoody: He was never there.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: —and that he was not given an opportunity to repeat what he said in Committee which, taken in the round, was quite different from what the hon. Lady has suggested. As to the hon. Lady's second question, I do not know how many authorities do not provide for the elderly, nor do I know whether all or any of them are Conservative controlled. I hope, however, that when the Bill is on the statute book all local authorities will respond to my right hon. Friend's generous provisions.
      Mr. Caborn: Is the hon. Gentleman recommending to the Secretary of State that the concessionary fares system in the city of Nottingham should be the minimum in the rest of the country? Does he agree that some local authorities, because of rate capping, will have difficulty in supporting concessionary fares? We have just gone

      907
      through one round of rate capping and the next one might involve considerably more local authorities who will have enormous trouble supporting schemes such as that in Nottingham, which I gather is free.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I can confirm that the scheme in Nottingham is free, off-peak. As the generosity of the scheme is about average, I hope that it is an example of schemes that my right hon. Friend would be more than happy to approve. He will be able to comment later.
      Rate capping is the only shot left in the Labour party's locker. Few, if any, local authorities would be unable to provide a scheme such as we have in Nottingham if they cut out some of their ridiculous spending and applied the rules of normal prudent housekeeping.
      Mr. Ridley: If any local authority controlled by the Labour party cared a fig for old people — I do not believe that many of them do; they care for their votes —they would never mention rate capping because they would make it their priority to support a concessionary fares scheme at the expense of almost any other rubbish that they might spend money on.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. He has, as we say, scored a bullseye. Indeed, it was the Conservatives who introduced the scheme in the city of Nottingham.
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Should not the hon. Member be retorting to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it was in Birmingham in 1955 that, in the case of Prescott v. Birmingham Corporation, the local authority was banned from operating a concessionary fares scheme? It took 10 years until a Labour Government were in power to rescind that judgment. An Act of Parliament of a Labour Government introduced concessionary travel.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman has said. The law was as it was at the time of the case in Birmingham. It is to the credit of the Labour Government at that time that they changed the law. However, one could say that about almost anything that comes before Parliament: we change law because we perceive the law or the existing situation to be unacceptable.
      Mr. Wareing: But the Conservative Government did not do it in 1955.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: There are many things that Governments do not do. There are just so many hours in the day, and we are demonstrating very ably just how long we can take over the most acceptable clauses in the Bill.
      Mr. Parris: Will my hon. Friend ask himself how it can be that Sheffield, under rate capping, feels that it cannot afford a concessionary fares scheme yet at the same time can afford £16,000 a year for an anti-nuclear co-ordinating officer?
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Opposition Members may say, "Ah, yes, but you can't provide a concessionary fares scheme for just £16,000", but I am certain that, if one went through the Sheffield books, one would discover countless instances of such amounts which, put together, would provide sufficient to fund a concessionary fares scheme.
      Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend, who perhaps too readily agreed with the hon.
      908
      Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). My hon. Friend might like to know that in 1955 legislation was introduced by the Conservative Government to give powers to municipal authorities, including Nottingham, to grant concessionary fares immediately after the judgment to which the hon. Member for West Derby referred.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for correcting my ignorance. I trust, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the hon. Member for West Derby catches your eye he will be gracious enough to accept that and withdraw his earlier remark.
      Mr. Steen: I wish to put right the unfortunate slur which has been made too often with regard to the proceedings in Standing Committee in what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) tried to infer. Does my hon. Friend agree that we on the Government Benches, by accepting the principles behind the Bill, realise that private operators running without a subsidy have to run a profitable service? They cannot run an unprofitable service because they are not eligible for Government subsidy. Therefore, they have to be profitable. Only when they are profitable and are going concerns can they provide the much needed help from which the elderly, the mentally ill and others can benefit. Until the profit is there, unfortunately, they cannot provide the widescale facilities which the Opposition seek to have provided. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is concerned with the ability to make a profit? Does he also agree that under the Bill we hope to provide more facilities for a wider cross-section of people so that more people travel by bus and more profits will be made?
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I see nothing untoward in the way that he puts his case. My hon. Friend is saying that one cannot offer an operator a concessionary fare scheme unless operators exist in the first place, and operators will not exist in the first place unless there is a mechanism by which they can operate. If that is what my hon. Friend seeks to say, I do not think that any hon. Member could question it. I say again that I think that my hon. Friend's name was grossly abused in his absence in Standing Committee.
      There are two matters that I hope the Secretary of State will clarify in replying. When I set out in Standing Committee the scheme which operated in Nottingham, I said that the mechanism was under the control of the traffic commissioner. That scheme was agreed between the then local authority in 1967 or 1968 and the traffic commissioner, and that formula has remained ever since. In clause 11, it seems that the Secretary of State can designate somebody to act for him. I hope that I am not being presumptuous, but by implication that person appears to be the traffic commissioner. If that is so I think that nobody will regard that as unreasonable. It seems a sensible way forward.
      New clause 16 seems to suggest that an operator can only be fined for failure to comply with the scheme. I hope that by implication that does not mean that, if an operator persistently abuses the facility of a concessionary fare scheme, the traffic commissioner will not have the power to take away his operator's licence. No one surely would wish to permit to remain in operation an undertaking that constantly infringes the scheme within the area of its activity. We owe it to the elderly and to the disabled who

      909
      will have passes to ensure that they are not persistently denied access to the buses in their area because there is an operator who flies close to the wind.
      If indeed clause 16 is just one of the mechanisms, I suggest that clause 25 might be the mechanism by which a traffic commissioner could withdraw an operator's licence for persistent abuse of a scheme.
      Mr. Cowans: I have been following closely the hon. Gentleman's speech, and up to now he has sounded more like the sheriff of Nottingham than Robin Hood. There is now a glorious opportunity for him to be Robin Hood. Would he at my invitation like to place on record a categorical assurance that the scheme that he has praised in Nottingham will be the same scheme after the Bill is enacted, because new clause 9 provides for opting out rather than opting in, which could be the death knell of the scheme that he has so greatly praised?
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, and clearly has not bothered to read the report of the proceedings in Standing Committee. Nor has he bothered to read new clause 11. These four new clauses have to be taken in the round. It would not be possible for any one to stand alone. They are inter-related and inter-dependent. One cannot opt out under clause 9 if there is not a scheme and, if there is a scheme under clause 11, clause 9 would operate. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is unable to understand that.
      Mr. Cowans: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to tell his constituents that the scheme will still exist after the enactment of the Bill?
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am perfectly happy to say that I am satisfied that the undertaking that the Secretary of State gave in Standing Committee and the undertaking that the Minister gave in Standing Committee were such that it would be impossible for them to renege on those undertakings under the clauses that they have included in the Bill and to stay in office. I do not have the power to give such an undertaking. That is a matter for Ministers and the law as it is. However, I believe that it is a reasonable assumption that the Bill allows local authorities to operate a concessionary fares scheme.
      The Bill and the new clauses suggest to me that the scheme that we are running in Nottingham will also be allowed. As much as that scheme costs—£2·4 million—it is a sum of money that has bipartisan support in the city of Nottingham. It is a provision of first priority. It is entirely up to the local authority to decide whether it wants to run its affairs so badly that its highest priority, provision for the elderly, is at risk. I say to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) that, if the Conservatives control Nottingham, the commitment to the old-age pensioners will be honoured to the full. If Labour remains in control for much longer—some of the mad schemes that Labour representatives have up their sleeves might put that at risk—that is for the local authority, and the local authority alone. There is nothing that the Secretary of State can say or do that will change that.
      I restate what I said at the beginning of my remarks. We had a long debate in Committee. We were given undertakings which have been honoured. My constituents and I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends are grateful to the Secretary of State.
      7 pm
      Mr. Stephen Ross: Although I recognise that the Secretary of State has fulfilled the promise to introduce new clauses that give some assurance to hon. Members that the concessionary fares schemes will continue, I think that he will agree that they are excessively complicated and full of qualifications. I wonder whether the question put by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) can be answered by the Secretary of State.
      Subsection (6) of new clause 9 states:
      "Where it is proposed—

      (a) to vary a scheme under section 85 of this Act".

      In new clause 11, someone participating in a scheme has to give special reasons why his participation in the scheme would be inappropriate. Tomorrow we shall discuss amendment No. 97, which also refers to exemption from that obligation. New clause 16 refers to enforcement and a fine. I cannot help believing that somebody somewhere will find a way through that mire of legislation. If people have financial difficulties in maintaining the service, they may wish to use some of those ways out.
      I can only bore the House with the experience that I have had over the past few months, which is driving me crazy, with regard to the provision of services by Sealink, which the Secretary of State privatised. In my constituency, it is part of the public transport system which links two sections of the railway system. The latest concession that has been withdrawn by Sealink is the half fare for service men. Men serving in the Royal Navy who live in my constituency have written to me complaining bitterly that whenever they wish to come on leave or visit home for a weekend they now have to pay full fares on Sealink whereas on the railway they have to pay only half fare. The railway gives a travel concession, but Sealink does not do so now. Also, visitors to the Isle of Wight who are unlucky enough to live near a station where they cannot buy a printed ticket that goes through a computer have to buy a separate ticket when they arrive at Portsmouth harbour. When there are hundreds of them and the boat is going in five minutes, that is no joke. Many of those people are writing to me.
      I realise that I am off the point about concessionary bus fares, but that is an experience that I am now having with a private operator. I know that a commitment was not written into the sale, but a wish to maintain through booking was expressed. I pay tribute, as I did in Committee, to the role of the Minister when he tried to help put that right in April, when I pleaded with him over the Easter period. The through fare was withdrawn at the peak period of Easter. There is no legal obligation on the operator of Sealink to maintain the through fares.
      The new clauses are complicated. Surely the provision could have been written in without all this verbiage. They are full of qualifications. I suggest that some operators will wish to find ways out. I know that they may be fined, but I hope that the Secretary of State will give us stronger assurances. He moved the new clause 9 very quickly. It and the others are complicated, and I find them difficult to understand. I am sure that other hon. Members do too, if they are honest about it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give stronger assurances that the clauses mean that if a concessionary fares scheme is operating at the moment, as far as he is aware, there is no earthly

      911
      reason why it should not be continued, and adequate finance will be provided to local authorities such as Nottingham so that they can maintain the scheme. Let us think again of the situation in London. It is what cities such as Nottingham and other great cities deserve. It was granted to London, and it should be granted to the rest of the country.
      Mr. Peter Fry: I declared on the Second Reading my interest in the National Bus Company, but I happily declare it again.
      I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State two fairly short questions about new clause 11. One concerns the use of the word "inappropriate" in subsection (3). It is an unusual word. Why has my right hon. Friend chosen it rather than "unreasonable"? If a participation notice were unreasonable, there could be quite clear reasons for it. For example, operators could be required to carry passengers with concessionary tickets at peak times, or the scheme may not sufficiently compensate the operator for the service provided. Therefore, would it not be better to use the word "unreasonable"? The word "inappropriate" seems slightly odd. For example, if there were a successor transport authority to South Yorkshire, it might impose some unreasonable conditions in the notice, which need not necessarily be inappropriate in terms of its own transport policy. I should like my right hon. Friend to answer that point.
      Secondly, when participation notices are served, the operator might decide that the scheme is not appropriate for him, yet the local authority might still wish him to continue. I know that the new clause gives the operator the right to appeal, but the problem is that he could find himself operating at a considerable loss while that appeal procedure went through. I understand how the system works, and at the end either the notice is confirmed, in which case the operator must decide whether to carry on, or the appeal is allowed. Will my right hon. Friend explain why operators, who will presumably be running tight under his new regime, should have to run at what could be considerable financial losses? In the event of an appeal, will they receive compensation?
      Mr. Pike: The new clauses are important because the threat to concessionary fares is the most serious threat in the Bill. In Committee, when we were assured that amendments would be made to take care of the points raised by Conservative Members, they accepted the assurances and withdrew their amendments. They believed that the Minister would come forward with some proposals to safeguard the position. At that stage my hon. Friends and I thought that they were being conned and buying a pig in a poke, and that they would not get genuine safeguards.
      The hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for South Hams (Mr. Steen) accepted those assurances, but the safeguards which are supposed to be included in these amendments show that they were not sincere about wishing to safeguard concessionary fares. These proposals take a short pace forward, but do not provide the type of security for concessionary fares that we wish.
      Although I am prepared to accept that some Conservative Members may have a social conscience and believe that there should be some provision for the elderly and disabled, when the desire to meet that commitment is
      912
      set against the cash required, I know which they choose and where their judgment lies. During our debates on this important Bill, Conservative Members have shown themselves to care more about financial implications than about protecting services and concessionary fares.
      I accept that the new clause is a slight improvement to the Bill, but it is only slight. If Conservative Members were sincere, they would have secured amendments to safeguard concessionary fares for people throughout the country on the same basis as those in London.
      Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman share my horror and aghast feeling that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was not prepared to tell the House what scheme her party would operate, if it were ever in government again, or even to guarantee that the present scheme would continue? Has the hon. Gentleman ever known such hypocrisy as that of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, who doubt the Government's intentions about concessionary fares, and refuse point blank to answer my three questions about whether they have any plans to introduce anything better themselves, if they ever come to office?
      Mr. Pike: There is no hypocrisy on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). If there is any, it is on the part of the Government, who say that they believe in concessionary fares but who do nothing to safeguard them. Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, the Labour party is democratic. It will determine its policies at party conferences before we fight the next general election. No Secretary of State in a Labour Government would determine the policy. The opposite is true of the Conservative party, which formulates its policy after winning an election. The hypocrisy in this debates shown by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends, who are not prepared to write into the Bill any safeguards to protect concessionary fares.
      7.15 pm
      In Committee, we requested that the Bill should include provisions for concessionary fares on the same basis as that which was forced on the Secretary of State in the London Regional Transport Act 1984. If they are good enough for London, they are good enough for my constituents, the people of Lancashire and the nation as a whole. That request was perfectly reasonable. Failing that, our fallback position of asking for an amendment to ensure that there would be no detriment to concessionary fare systems as a result of the Bill is absolutely reasonable. I do not conceive how any Conservative Member can debate this: issue without supporting such safeguards, if he genuinely believes that there should be concessionary fares.
      In Committee, I drew attention to the fact that Hyndburn borough council was already preparing for the Bill, and had announced that 16 to 18-year-old students will no longer be eligible for concessionary fares. It said that concessionary fares could continue if the county council was prepared to meet the bill and pay the additional cost. That is nonsense. It is worth mentioning that that council is Conservative-controlled. However, if it continues to pursue that policy, it will not be Conservative-controlled for long.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, South referred to many bad local government decisions. He shares the 'view of his hon. Friends that Labour authorities are extravagant,

      913
      wasteful and inefficient, but that is not true. It is a fallacy put about by Conservative Members and the Conservative party. Labour councils try to tackle the problems that face their communities, which they have been elected to do. Unfortunately, because of the financial restraints placed on them by the Government, they cannot tackle the problems to the extent that they would wish.
      The implications of rate capping and penalties severely affect the future of concessionary fares. The question is not merely whether a local authority is rate-capped, but whether it receives a penalty as a result of overspending or raising an additional penny in the pound rate. The penalty can be equivalent to a 7p rate, and it is that which makes councils think carefully about what they can do.
      It is not sufficient for the Secretary of State to say that local authorities have the right to provide concessionary fares, when he will not give them the money to do the job. It is strange that he says that local authorities should have the power to determine what concessionary fare schemes they should provide, when the Secretary of State for the Environment increasingly ties down local government with every act and statement that he makes. If the Secretary of State believes that local government should have the freedom to determine concessionary fares, he should say to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, "If that is the Government's policy on transport, why is it not their policy on the environment? Why do we not allow local authorities to determine their expenditure on all local services?"
      The Secretary of State shows his insincerity on this issue by not being prepared to follow that line. We must put some safeguard in the Bill. However, having been a member of the Committee and having read the Second Reading debate, I doubt whether any amendments will come from the Government to provide the guarantees that are needed.
      Although the new clauses are a slight improvement, they are extremely difficult to understand, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said, and will not give the protection to concessionary fares that we would wish. If the Secretary of State, his colleagues in the Department and Conservative Members want the disabled, the blind, the elderly and others to continue to enjoy concessionary fares, even at this late stage, they should introduce suitable amendments to protect such fares. However, I believe that they will not. The procedure involved in the new clauses will be extremely difficult to administer. Although the Secretary of State will not accept it, most of us recognise that local authorities will almost certainly be forced to use tokens as a result of the Bill. Most hon. Members must recognise that tokens are not the most suitable form of concessionary fares, and that the pass is a much better system.
      Lancashire county council has made great strides in co-ordinating all the concessionary fare systems in the county. The chairman of the county council's transport committee wishes Lancashire to merge its schemes with those in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, so that those who live in the north-west can enjoy much wider concessionary travel. That will be a tremendous step forward. However, when the Bill is enacted, such steps forward will become more difficult to introduce. There will almost certainly be reductions, not improvements, in the provision of concessionary fares.
      914
      Although we hear words of sympathy from Conservative Members, we have yet to see them vote to support their words. I doubt whether, when we vote later on other issues, any Conservative Member will have the courage to support protection for concessionary fares.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said more than once that it was not only pressure from Labour Members in Committee on the London Regional Transport Act 1984 which forced the Secretary of State to make a concession. There was also pressure from Conservative Members, who had the courage not only to utter words of sympathy but to vote when it mattered.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Conservative manifesto stated that concessionary fares would be protected, which is why those hon. Members voted as they did.
      Mr. Pike: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. It is hard to imagine that the Conservative party tried to honour some of the pledges in its election manifesto, but I accept his assurance that Conservative Members did so on that occasion. If the Conservative Members of that Committee had not been prepared to support what they believed and to tell the Secretary of State, "If you do not protect concessionary fares in London, we will not support the Bill," it would have gone through unaltered. If Conservative Members had had the same courage in respect of this Bill, we could have been debating amendments much more meaningful than the present ones, which, while they may satisfy Conservative Members, do not satisfy me and my hon. Friends.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that it will be impossible in Lancashire to operate a system other than tokens. In half of my constituency, tokens are used; the only snag is that many people cannot use them, either because there is no rural bus service or because they are too disabled to get on the buses. Therefore, my constituents will welcome the fact that, in future, they can use their tokens on regular taxi routes.
      In my constituency, it is essential to have concessionary fares, for the simple reason that existing bus fares are extremely high. For example, it costs £2–10 to get from Lancaster to Abbeystead, and £1–90 to get from Pilling to Garstang. A great problem is that, when one gets to the centres of population, one cannot get back home because the buses leave so quickly. That means that passengers must rush to do their shopping and certainly cannot pause to have coffee or tea with their friends. There is a mad scramble to get back. However, when they can use their tokens for taxis, their visit will be more leisurely. They may go to the town by bus, as they do now, but they can use their tokens to return home.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: No; I have finished.
      Mr. Bob Clay: Conservative Members, led by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, have taken another step in a cynical and fraudulent conspiracy to mislead pensioners and to give the impression that something is being done, whereas they know perfectly well by now — the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) gave the game

      915
      away—that what they are doing with the new clauses is saying to local authorities, "We give you the licence to do the impossible if you can find out how to do the impossible." Nothing in the clauses explains how local authorities will continue to fund the good schemes that exist now.
      It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, in an almost throwaway remark, say that if some authorities would stop wasting section 137 money, they would be able to fund concessionary fare schemes. Given that the maximum spending under section 137 is the equivalent of a 2p rate, that gives us some idea of the Mickey Mouse notion of concessionary travel—
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that, in the city of Nottingham, the 2p rate raises just under £l million? I understand that in the county of Nottinghamshire it raises three times that amount. Although he may believe that that is Mickey Mouse money, I do not, and I doubt whether anyone else in the Chamber does.
      Mr. Clay: The hon. Gentleman explained that the present, somewhat limited concessionary travel scheme in Nottingham cost £2?2 million. Therefore, from his figures, it appears that Nottingham's section 137 money provides less than 50 per cent. of what it costs to fund the existing scheme. But in Tyne and Wear, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar to some extent, the concessionary travel scheme costs about £22 million. The equivalent of a 2p rate in Tyne and Wear, which at present would be only £2 million, comes nowhere near meeting our requirements.
      That is the key to the deception that is being perpetrated on the public. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South tried to wriggle away repeatedly—we shall look at his answer with interest in the Official Report —from the question whether he could put his hand on his heart and say that even the scheme in Nottingham will exist after the Bill is enacted.
      I challenge the Secretary of State to put his hand on his heart and say that every existing concessionary travel scheme will still be in place after the Bill is enacted. I do not see that he could say that some of the best schemes in metropolitan country areas and in some municipal areas can exist when the grant-related expenditure that he will allow in the rate precept will be the equivalent of half fares. He has already said that. That might be the case at the moment. but metropolitan counties and other authorities have more flexibility to do something more generous if they wish.
      7.30 pm
      If the GRE is to be based on the assumption that concessionary travel means half fares, that shows the true philosophy of the Government Front Bench. It fits in with the remarks of the Minister of State at the Bus and Coach Council dinner when he said that the shire counties had got it about right. Given the assumption that concessionary fares will be based in half fares, given that the transport joint boards in the metropolitan counties are effectively rate-capped, and given that the Secretary of State will determine the rate precept for concessionary travel, I do not know how it will be financially possible for authorities which at the moment provide a completely free scheme or which make generous provision for children, such as the 5p flat fare in my county, to maintain those services under
      916
      the financial arrangements that will result not only from this Bill but from other legislation that is going through Parliament.
      Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must turn his wrath on the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She has made it clear that she has no intention, if she ever comes to power, of financing concessionary fares on a full repayment basis. Three times I challenged her and three times she denied it. The cock crowed thrice. Would the hon. Gentleman please take the hon. Lady outside and have his argument with her in private? There is no point in blaming me for what she has said.
      Mr. Clay: I have no wish to have any argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) because she is not sitting where the Secretary of State for Transport is sitting. If she were, and if we had a Labour Government, I and my hon. Friends might be making complimentary speeches about restoring the public transport system that the Secretary of State is about to wreck, or we might be having arguments about how fast we could go along that road. However, it is the Secretary of State who is responsible, and he has not answered the specific points I made.
      It is disgraceful to try to distract hon. Members into arguments about what a Labour Government would do if they were in power. We are arguing about what the Secretary of State is doing. I was making a specific point, that it is fraud and hypocrisy to claim continually that clauses are being put in the Bill to enable people to have concessionary travel schemes. The people who benefit from such schemes at the moment do not understand the kind of parliamentary deception that is being practised. They have believed, not unreasonably, that when Ministers say they are protecting concessionary travel, that means that what exists in their area will stay. The Secretary of State knows very well that that is not what it means and that that will not happen. Therefore, it is deception and fraud.
      Mr. Parris: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) say that the new clauses are capable of improvement. How would they improve them?
      Mr. Clay: I am arguing that these clauses could have more teeth. I am not arguing specifically about the requirement on operators to provide a scheme. I realise that I am somewhat wide of the clause but much of the debate has been in the same vein.
      There is no dispute about the fact that these clauses are the Government's response to the promises made continually in Committee to come back on Report with something that guaranteed concessionary travel. We are arguing that concessionary travel is not guaranteed by the new clauses because they do not provide the means for local authorities to finance even existing schemes, let alone enable local authorities which wish to improve their concessionary schemes to do so.
      Mr. Ridley: Why did the hon. Gentleman not table a new clause seeking to achieve the objective that he is now putting forward? Was his arm twisted by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who has made it clear that it is Labour party policy to cut concessionary fares? Will he tell his constituents that, instead of spreading all this rubbish?
      Mr. Clay: It is absolute slander to say that it is Labour policy to cut public transport. The Secretary of State is misrepresenting what has been said by anyone on these Benches.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend explain to the Secretary of State that we debated the matter at great length in Committee? The Secretary of State knows very well that, had we put down the same amendments that we debated in Committee, we should have been ruled out of order. He is well aware that the Labour party has spelt out time and time again its commitment to concessionary schemes. What is more, the Labour party has brought them into effect when it has been in control in local government. All his party does is seek to destroy existing schemes and refuse to give the finance that is necessary.
      Mr. Clay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. She is right that in Committee many amendments about concessionary travel were tabled by Labour Members. Those amendment would have specifically enabled local authorities to have concessionary travel schemes and to require operators to be involved in them. Conservative Members consistently defeated the amendments because the wording would have put an obligation on the Secretary of State to supply adequate funding.
      I well recall the Under-Secretary of State arguing that, if we passed an amendment which would have provided free concessionary travel for old people throughout Britain at all times, it would have cost, in his estimate, the scandalous sum of £230 million. He thought that the possibility of something costing £230 million would convince us all that not even a Labour Government could contemplate it. That brings to mind the absurd runway that has just been laid in the Falklands. If we could provide free travel at all times for every old age pensioner at £230 million, that would be chickenfeed for such an achievement.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I hope the hon. Member will dissociate himself from the deception— I cannot find another word for it—that has been perpetrated by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She told the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) that the reason why the Labour party had not tabled amendments specifically on this matter was that they would be ruled out of order. May I suggest that that is a rather lame excuse? To its credit, the Liberal party—now absent from the Chamber—tabled an amendment to leave out clause 1, which is the kernel of the Bill. If the Liberal party can put down an amendment to underline what it wants to say, why should it have been so difficult for the Labour party?
      Mr. Clay: We are straying off the debate about this new clause. I am not answerable for what the Liberal party does about anything. This matter was debated at great length in Committee and I remind hon. Members that we were told—
      Mr. Dixon: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that anyone can put down any amendment, but it is up to Mr. Speaker whether or not it is selected? Will he also bear in mind the fact that the amendments about concessionary bus passes that the Secretary of State suggested should be tabled would not be accepted because that could have an effect on the money resolution?
      Mr. Clay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should prefer not to give way on this point again. We have had red herring after red herring about Labour party policy and why we did not put down amendments. Conservative Members have been deceiving pensioners and the disabled.
      Mr. Ridley rose —
      Mr. Clay: I will give way only if the Secretary of State will explain, for the first time, how local authorities with good concessionary fare schemes will still be able to fund them when, after another Bill becomes law, the metropolitan counties are abolished, joint boards have rate precepts fixed by the Secretary of State and other financial restrictions are placed on local authorities. Can he guarantee that Tyne and Wear will still have a 5p flat fare for children and free travel for the disabled and that other counties will have the same?
      Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is getting himself into extremely deep water, and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) made the water a little deeper for him. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour party tried to amend the Bill to achieve permanent guarantees for concessionary fares? That did not work, because the Bill is not about the finance of the concessionary fare schemes but about arrangements for the bus industry. There is no way that the Bill could be amended in the way suggested. He knows that perfectly well. Will he come clean and admit for once that he is talking about the wrong Bill?
      Mr. Clay: The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that a Bill can deal with taxis as well as buses, with virtually every aspect of the bus industry, and with banning smoking on buses—which has nothing to do with deregulation—could have had clauses which would have guaranteed concessionary travel and placed the financial responsibility for that on the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Pike: It is important not to be led down the line that the Labour party has tabled no amendments on concessionary fares today. New clause 18, in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is about our fallback attempt, which we made in Committee, to ensure that existing concessionary fare schemes are protected. We realised that we would not have got any further than that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Hon. Members are dealing with a number of clauses and amendments, but we must deal only with the ones selected in this group. Hon. Members must stop talking about what is in order—the Chair decides that.
      Mr. Clay: I am grateful for that protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said that I should like to return to this new clause instead of having to deal with the disruptions from Tory Members designed to disguise the central fact that the Government have been deceiving the public with their promises about concessionary travel being protected.
      There is no explanation of how local authorities will negotiate the basis of reimbursement with the operators concerned. That is a very complicated matter. Repeatedly in Committee, we said that we expected that when this famous set of clauses, for which we have all been waiting, was finally revealed to the light of day, something in it would explain how the local authorities and the operators would agree the basis of reimbursement for whatever scheme the local authority wished to apply.

      919
      It is significant that, at the end of the day, after the complicated and bureaucratic procedure of appeals and the rest laid out in the new clause, if an operator still refuses to participate in a scheme, the case will go to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can, if he wishes, go back to the local authority and say that the scheme that it wishes to impose on the operator is unreasonable for certain reasons. Effectively, he can say to the authority that, if it wants the operator to participate in the scheme, it will have to have a certain scheme.
      Mr. Parris: That is correct.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Clay: I am glad that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) has agreed that I have that right.
      In that case, the Secretary of State, far from guaranteeing concessionary travel, has given himself powers that he has been after for some time. They are powers to tie down authorities and to shape the kind of concessionary travel schemes that they will have. It is obvious that, with this Secretary of State, if the more generous schemes are resisted by operators, he will say that the authorities are unreasonable. He will side with the operator and tell the local authority that it will have to have a different scheme if it wants him to force the operator to come into the scheme.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman restate his last few sentences? I find it difficult to follow the logic that an operator is likely to refuse the more generous schemes. Surely this clause is to protect both local authorities and operators when the scheme is ungenerous. That is the reverse of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
      Mr. Clay: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. There is a difference between generosity to receivers of concessionary travel — the old, the young and the disabled—and generosity to operators. It may be that a generous scheme that provides free travel at all times for the disabled and the old and cheap flat fares for children will not, because of the way it operates, be particularly attractive to certain bus operators. On the other hand, a less generous scheme may be more attractive to bus operators. There may be disputes about this, and what is best for passengers may not always be most attractive to the operator. In such a conflict, the case will end up with the Secretary of State, whom I am fairly certain will come down in favour of the operator.
      Furthermore, the Secretary of State still has not explained, although this question was asked repeatedly, how on earth a local authority, particularly when it is faced with the complex mechanism to oblige operators to participate in the scheme, will estimate how to pool the concessionary travel money that it will need to finance schemes in a particular year—assuming that it can get the money from somewhere. Operators will be able to register and pull out again and will be able to argue about whether they want to participate in the scheme. How will a local authority, at a particular point in its year, be able to estimate what amount of concessionary money to allow for the following year, when it does not even know what operators there will be in the scheme, what rate support grant there will be or any of the other factors required to make a judgment?
      920
      Even if generous funding and central Government support were available, the rest of the Bill and the instability that may be created in the industry will make it impossible for the PTAs to be able to estimate what money to allocate for such schemes. How will they be able to say to an operator that if he operates on a particular rate for a year he will be paid so much if he participates in the concessionary travel scheme? Once the authority has named a sum of money and secured an agreement with an operator, what happens if another operator registers along that route to compete with the first? Does it promise him the same sum of money, or does it go back to the first operator and say, "Despite the agreement that we made with you, we shall pay you only half the amount we originally agreed to pay, because we have to give the other half to somebody else who has just decided to register and to operate a service in competition with you?" These fundamental questions have not yet been answered by the Secretary of State, or by anybody else.
      For these reasons, as well as the fundamental reason of a persistent refusal to explain how the existing schemes, let alone better ones, will be funded, these clauses are a fraud and one of the most cruel deceptions that this Government have inflicted. The pensioners and the disabled now realise how they have been deceived and misled by the Government's phoney promises on concessionary travel. The Government will reap the whirlwind because of the deception that they have practised.
      Mr. Parris: Good heavens, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that is the kind of speech that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and his colleagues make when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has honoured every undertaking that he gave in Committee, I wonder what kind of speeches they would have made had he not honoured those commitments. Everything that my right hon. Friend said in Committee that he would do he has now done in the new clauses. They lay down in clear and uncompromising terms precisely the obligations upon operators which the Committee asked my right hon Friend to lay down. A considerable burden is laid upon operators. If there is any cause for raised eyebrows about the new clauses, it should be about the burden that the obligations lay upon operators, a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) referred.
      No mention has been made of the position under the existing regime. There are no formal statutory powers under which a local authority may oblige operators to participate in concessionary schemes, but local authorities have an effective power to encourage operators to participate. As a local authority is involved in the licensing of routes, it can withdraw the licence of an operator who refuses to operate a concessionary scheme, or somebody else can be licensed to operate on the same route. That is not very different from providing the ghost service which my right hon. Friend suggested might be included in the Bill, which would be a sufficient weapon in the hands of local authorities but upon which the Opposition poured so much scorn.
      Mr. Dixon: Nonsense.
      Mr. Parris: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense". Would he care to explain why?
      Mr. Dixon: How on earth could a local authority run a ghost service to pick up the disabled and the elderly who will not be catered for by the private entrepreneurs?
      Mr. Parris: The same question could be asked about the powers which are available to local authorities under the existing system. If an operator refuses to participate in a concessionary scheme, the only power that is available to a local authority is to say that a licence will be given to somebody else to operate on that particular route or that the local authority will subsidise the running of a service on that route. If all local operators wanted to call the bluff of the local authority, they would be in a strong position, but they have rarely, if ever, done so and concessionary schemes have been imposed quite effectively upon operators.
      The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that this was a roundabout way for the Secretary of State to determine what kind of concessionary schemes a local authority ought to run. If it is, the Secretary of State already has such a power under the existing system. Appeals against the withdrawal of a licence or the refusal to grant a licence are now determined under the same kind of system as is proposed in the new clauses. My right hon. Friend's arrangements make it absolutely clear that wherever a local authority has a reasonable travel concession scheme it can oblige operators to take part in it. The local authority will have all the means necessary at its disposal to ensure that operators co-operate. What more can we ask from my right hon. Friend than that?
      All that we could ask for is what the Opposition have been pressing for but for which it is unreasonable to ask: that the Secretary of State should undertake to underwrite financially every concessionary fare scheme which any local authority may wish to operate. My right hon. Friend refuses to do it under the new provisions, he refuses to do it under the existing provisions, and the last Labour Government certainly did not do it during the many years when they had the opportunity to do exactly the same thing.
      At a time when public transport in many parts of this country had declined substantially and seriously, the Labour Government were not prepared to step in and underwrite concessionary fare schemes. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to do that, nor would it be reasonable for him to do it. All that my right hon. Friend is doing in the new clauses is saying to local authorities, "Work out a reasonable and sensible concessionary fares scheme. If the local operators will not participate, I shall give you the power to force them to participate." My right hon. Friend has done everything that he said in Committee he would do, and Conservative Members are grateful to him.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and I both serve on the Select Committee on Transport, but I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee which examined the Bill. I have been stunned by some of the remarks which have been made, to which I have listened carefully. I have also been listening carefully to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have said that we should try to deal with the clauses and not roam all over the globe.
      Hon. Members will recall that I have already said that I am disturbed about the nature of the Bill. The Transport and General Workers Union is also disturbed by it. That
      922
      is why continual lobbying is taking place. Hon. Members who support the Bill are being asked to discuss it with the union because union members feel grave disquiet about their future wages, conditions of work and pensions. Their suspicions and fears have not yet been allayed, nor have the suspicions and fears of the elderly about the concessionary fares which the new clauses attempt to wrap up as much as possible. Concessionary fares in London, however, are almost enshrined in law.
      The Secretary of State has never lacked nerve, but he has great nerve when he suggests that the Opposition do not care about the elderly and that it is only the Conservatives who care. That is ridiculous. I concede immediately to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that the care felt in local government cuts right across party political boundaries. It may be that in Nottingham the Tories were persuaded by the attitude of the then Labour Government and by what was taking place in Birmingham, which is not very far from Nottingham. When one scheme gets under way, great pressure is exerted, which works to the advantage of the elderly.
      Many Conservative and Liberal members of local authorities would prefer that kind of scheme to be applied as generously as possible. Vying with that would be the philosophy of hon. Members who hold similar views to those of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South: that such a scheme should not impose too heavy a burden upon ratepayers and taxpayers. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, South does not hold that view, I shall accept what he says. However, that is the general attitude of the Tories and of the Secretary of State, who has been forced to try to allay people's fears.
      Many questions about new clause 11 have to be asked. If a private operator backtracks upon his supposed obligations under the local authority scheme, what kind of policing is there to be? If reports are made because of certain misdeeds, will the private operator be able to use lawyers to try to safeguard his scheme? How many cases do we envisage? The answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West is that people in general have greater faith in local authority and municipal transport schemes.
      I have lived a bit longer than the hon. Gentleman and I well remember the substandard private bus operations that we heard about when we visited Hereford and Worcester. There were ample tales about that. I want to know more about the consequences of such things—the charging of people who should not be charged when only one vehicle is in sight. The whole gamut of the Bill opens the way for the slick operator and to cowboy activity. We shall see it in full measure in due course.
      8 pm
      I want particularly to allude to the climate in which the free fare—not the concessionary fare—on London buses and tubes came into being. That was accepted in the longer term by Tory members of the GLC. It was in their election manifesto and they could not backtrack on that. But they certainly did not spearhead the free fair system. It is not customary for concessionary fares or free travel for pensioners to be spearheaded by Tories, despite their importance. Mostly they go along with initiatives taken by Labour Members on local authorities, and that is what happened in the GLC.

      923
      Labour Members have had the most powerful lobby that they have ever experienced, financed by the Labour-controlled GLC. Old people have been encouraged to keep smothering us with representations on the necessity to safeguard their free travel on London's buses and tubes. They are now worried about the extent to which privatisation will mean that they will not get the same deal that they have been accustomed to under the GLC's management of buses and tubes which has now long gone. That is why Tory Members in Committee on the London Regional Transport Bill had to get up on their hind legs and insist that the Secretary of State dare not do anything other than safeguard the situation in London.
      I do not know why the Secretary of State is making such a meal of the Bill tonight. Of course, one cannot spell out exactly what would occur under a Labour Administration, but at least tonight, in response to this debate, he must state clearly that the present concessionary fares are safe in his hands. Conservative Members should also be insisting on that. If the policies of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State's close associate, on social and hospital services and so on are anything to go by we must be doubtful about that. However, that is what he should do in an attempt to allay some of the fears.
      I assume that we shall seek to divide the House on the new clauses, but much will depend upon the reply that the Minister gives tonight. He is an architect of confusion. He loves cut-throat competition and thinks that market forces can go where the hell they like in order to determine fare levels. Therefore, one imagines that he had to be forced further than his philosophy allowed him to go in order to write safeguards into these new clauses.
      The Secretary of State has introduced a crackpot Bill. We wait anxiously to get away from that audacious assertion that we do not care about old folk and their travelling facilities which are enormously important. Jack Jones, the former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, together with the trade union movement, has been at the forefront of demands that concessionary travel should be safeguarded as well as many other matters which affect the poor working class. It is in its interests that we battle here tonight. We are trying to extract some humanity from the Secretary of State. The ability of old folk to travel, leaving the car at home so that they are no longer burdened with it, is of enormous importance to Britain's social structure. The Bill and many other measures put through by the Government put old folk in jeopardy.
      Mr. Wareing: It was clear in Committee that the Secretary of State was looking for some fig leaf with which he could cover his nakedness over this issue. He has come along with these new clauses and none of them adequately satisfies Labour Members. The Committee was stuffed with one-term Tory Members who will not be in the House when, after the next election, the Labour Government are asked to restore public transport and the right which our senior citizens and disabled people now have—the right to concessionary travel passes. They will not be here, but they were a little worried so they tabled amendments. One related to concessionary travel and another to disabled people and their rights.
      Labour Members felt that there might be courageous souls among Tory Members, but when it came to the vote we found that the Tory Back Benchers had the courage only of the Secretary of State's conviction. They were not
      924
      willing to take their amendments to the vote. It was the Labour Members in Committee who had to vote against the withdrawal of amendments tabled by Tory Members. Presumably, they believed the gobbledegook of the package promised by the Secretary of State. We see now that the reality of that package is not one that even the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) can respond to by saying honestly that the scheme in his city will remain in existence if the Bill, with the new clause, reaches the statute book.
      Mr. Parris: It would be an example of courage to see a Labour Member admit that the Opposition's argument on this is completely bogus and that the Government have delivered everything that they promised in Committee. That would take courage.
      Mr. Wareing: No, I am afraid that the Government have not come up with what Labour Members demanded in Committee. Despite pretending otherwise, the Government have not fulfilled their promise to the disabled and the elderly or to parents with young children, in the latter category to enable them to take children to and from school.
      Although the Secretary of State made promises in Committee which seemed to placate Back Benchers, the real spokesmen on the Conservative Benches — those who were saying out loud what was in the Secretary of State's mind — included the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) who has honoured us with his presence today, though he was often conspicuous by his absence from Committee.
      Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
      Mr. Wareing: During one of the hon. Gentleman's brief excursions into the Committee Room he said — speaking, no doubt, for his party — that commercial undertakings had to make a profit and that he regarded public transport as a commercial undertaking and not a social service. Indeed, that is the gap that divides the parties on this issue. He said that profits must come first and that then we might consider what facilities could be provided for the disabled, the elderly and the rest.
      He was supported in that assertion at a later stage by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeec)—who is conspicuous by his absence today — who told the Committee that hon. Members should not be overwhelmed by arguments about assisting the disabled. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, East is never disabled, although he seems to suffer from a degree of mental handicap.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman referred to concessionary fares for children. Does he agree that, for the first time, the Bill enshrines a provision in that respect for children and that he, like every other member of the Standing Committee, received letters from county councils welcoming that provision?
      Mr. Wareing: There is no guarantee in the Bill that services which are at present provided—for example. by Merseyside county council to enable children to travel for half fare—will continue once the Bill becomes law. It was made clear in Committee that Tory Members were concerned with the cowboys who can be trusted to support them at subsequent elections.
      Let us not forget that the White Paper which was a prelude to the Bill went so far as to say that it would be easier to administer a token system. All the evidence

      925
      appears to prove that, if the Government are not willing to provide the financial resources to enable the pass system to continue, any concessionary scheme that is permitted will probably be the token system. I shall deal with some of the difficulties to which that would give rise.
      Mr. Steen: We had the pleasure of speeches from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) many times in Committee. Indeed, the only time that I was absent from the proceedings was when the hon. Gentleman was speaking; he was so tiresome and repetitive that I felt it preferable to be outside. Other than on those occasions, I was one of the most regular attenders and contributed in a positive and constructive way to the Committee's deliberations.
      Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that transport systems should be seen as social services?
      Mr. Wareing: Yes.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Steen: As he knows, I am one of the few trained social workers in the House, a point that I made in Committee. I repeat it because, with many of my hon. Friends, I am experienced in the welfare of the elderly, the handicapped, the ill and the mentally sick. The last thing that my hon. Friends and I want is to see that group of people being disadvantaged.
      However, we believe—the hon. Gentleman cannot yet absorb this—that it is not inconsistent to have a commercial undertaking and at the same time to help the disabled, the handicapped, the poor, the mentally sick and the rest. The hon. Gentleman wants guarantees. That is the difference between a totalitarian, monopolistic approach and a private enterprise commercial approach. Does he accept that it is not inconsistent to have a commercial enterprise which cares for others?
      Mr. Wareing: That intervention was almost as long as the one that the right hon. Gentleman made in Committee when I permitted him to interrupt a speech that I was making, and he made the statement to which I referred. He reveals the great divide between the two sides on this issue. He sees public transport as a commercial enterprise, and the motive of commercial enterprises is profit. Thus, profit must come before people —[Interruption.] — be they the elderly, the disabled or whoever. The very raison d'etre of private enterprise is profit, whereas the raison d'etre of a social service is to provide for the needs of people. We do not ask whether a particular NHS hospital makes a profit. Legislators have a duty to look after the whole community.
      The hon. Member for South Hams may have received training in social work, but it did not teach him much. He may remember, before he emigrated from Liverpool, Wavertree to the safer seat of South Hams in Devon, that many old folk and young disabled people lived on the outskirts of Liverpool in council and residential estates and that the only way to relieve their isolation and loneliness, perhaps by visiting relatives and friends, was by using the bus passes provided by nearly all the district councils on Merseyside—with the exception, of course, of the ultra Right-wing Tory council of Sefton district, which consistently refused to provide for the needs of its senior citizens.
      Mr. Dixon: If the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), a qualified social worker, believes that the disabled, the old and the infirm should not have concessionary passes until the bus companies make profits, one is bound to wonder what view the accountants, banisters and company directors on the Tory Benches take of concessionary fares.
      Mr. Wareing: I agree with my hon. Friend. If a Conservative social worker cannot find it in his heart to overcome the Tory private enterprise ethic on behalf of the elderly and disabled, it will be hard luck on those folk if they are left to the mercy of the 100 banisters on the Government Benches.
      Labour Members have to speak for constituencies such as mine, where 75 per cent. of the people, including the able-bodied as well as those who need concessionary fares, do not have the use of a private car. This is a social service. That is why we on Merseyside decided, after the Labour party was in control, to provide concessionary travel passes to the poor senior citizens of Tory-dominated Sefton district and to reduce fares on the buses to enable more people to travel. We turned the tide after years of Tory rule during which the number of passengers using the buses declined. Since 1981, the Secretary of State has argued that there has been a decline in the use of buses. We know, however, that on Merseyside patronage of buses has increased by 13 per cent.
      A lesson can be learned from concessionary travel. It costs Merseyside county council and other local authorities on Merseyside £18· million a year to provide concessionary travel, £16 million of which is provided by Merseyside county council. The Secretary of State for the Environment, however, is determined that GRE to cover the cost of concessionary travel should be £4· million. I raised this matter in Committee with the Secretary of State, who has not yet answered me. What on earth will be the real cost of providing the same scheme to the people on Merseyside when the council is abolished and the joint board has its budget fixed for the first three years by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Obviously, the cost will be much more than £18· million. It will be much more than the GRE which the Secretary of State for the Environment is willing to provide for concessionary travel.
      After this Bill becomes law, the authority that runs transport on Merseyside after 1985 will have to abandon the present concessionary scheme. It might have to go over to the ludicrous token scheme, with its accompanying disadvantages of a black market, with tokens being transferred and used as currency. This measure might ensure — this is the crux of the matter — that public expenditure on concessionary travel is cut. Every clause in every Bill introduced by a Conservative Secretary of State is aimed at redressing the imbalance for the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the person who really determines policy.
      The Government have chided Labour Members, asking why the Labour party did not ensure that concessionary travel passes were provided when it was in power. The Secretary of State has been busy chiding my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the actions of a future Labour Government. It was not the Labour Government of the 1970s which, year in and year out, cut transport supplementary grant or reduced rate support grant from 61 per cent. to 48 per cent. The

      927
      Labour Government did not introduce the draconian rate-capping legislation which this Government have introduced during the past three years.
      We can say, "The next Labour Government would not be allowed to retain such a Bill on the statute book." No Labour Member of Parliament would be allowed by his constituents — by the activists living in Crewe and Nantwich, in Liverpool, West Derby or elsewhere—to retain this Act for longer than was absolutely necessary. It would be months rather than years before this legislation was repealed, local authorities again had democratic rights and transport undertakings were provided as a social service.
      When the people see what is behind this fig leaf, which does not fully cover the nakedness of the Secretary of State, and understand this folly, they will realise the effect of deregulation. Indeed, as was shown in Committee, people in the Secretary of State's constituency are up in arms about the deregulation of buses.
      We should clearly say to the Government, "This measure may make the Bill a little better than it was in Committee, but it does nothing to safeguard the interests of our people. As soon as the Labour party is in power, it will ensure that those interests are resurrected."
      Dr. Marek: I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has shown a jack-in-the-box attitude and is not present at the moment. A short time ago he said that he was the only social worker in the House.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Trained social worker.
      Dr. Marek: He said that he was the only trained social worker in the House. He said that there was no possibility of helping the handicapped or the elderly until bus services were profitable. I am paraphrasing him, but that was the essence of his argument. The hon. Gentleman's argument is deplorable and must be brought to the attention of the country. That argument rang somewhat hollow. Conservative Members, using their favourite phrase, have said that the Labour party has no monopoly of compassion for the aged or the handicapped. I hope that Conservative Members will help the aged and the handicapped. They mouth platitudes and make noises but, when it comes to voting, they obey their Whips and troop into the Lobbies as directed like sheep.
      Some Conservative Members say that it takes some courage to state that this clause is an improvement. I believe that it is an improvement, although I am worried about some aspects of it. I can see that it takes some courage for Conservative Members to vote in the Lobby with the Opposition against aspects of the Bill that clearly will not help the handicapped, the disadvantaged or the elderly.
      Although the new clause makes the Bill a little better, I am not happy with it, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). The metropolitan counties are to be abolished and it is by no means clear that the existing level of concessionary fares will be maintained. With the exception of London, where a special case has been made, the provision of concessionary fares will be left to the boroughs and is likely to deteriorate. It is no use the Government arguing that the Labour Government did nothing about this because the Labour Government should have done something about it and that is certainly no excuse for the Conservatives doing nothing about it either.
      928
      In many ways, we seem to be going backwards into the 19th century rather than forwards into the 21st century. This is an evil Bill, the new clause does little to improve it, and I shall vote against it.
      8.30 pm
      There is also the problem of the shire counties, where existing concessionary fares schemes are much more rudimentary. If the financing of such schemes is moved out of the transport supplementary grant and into the block grant there will be great pressure on authorities from all the other problems that have beset them in the past five years—education cuts, inadequate housing provision, and so on. It is likely, therefore, that nothing will be done in the shire counties. If concessionary schemes continue to exist at all, old-age pensioners may receive £20, £30 or £40 worth of tokens each year. More enlightened shire counties may operate half fare schemes, although I am not aware of any such provision in my area. In any event, it looks as though such schemes as now exist will suffer as a result of this legislation, so we are going backwards. That is why I object to the new clause and to the Bill.
      The fact that an operator cannot leave the scheme without the authority's consent is a welcome provision, but I fear that shire authorities may allow operators to leave the scheme. An operator may say that his service is unsuitable, that he must catch the commuters and so has no time to help women with children or shopping. Rather than face the possibility of the operator ceasing to provide a service in a rural area and the authority having to consider supporting it through subsidy, the authority may well allow the operator to withdraw from the scheme.
      Even if the authority says that the operator must remain in the scheme, the operator can appeal to the Secretary of State, and who knows what attitude the Secretary of State will take? He may take decisions that are utterly unacceptable to us. Experience certainly suggests that that will be the case with the present Secretary of State, although the next Labour Secretary of State will doubtless take the first opportunity to repeal these provisions. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may laugh now, but he will not be laughing in a little while. The right hon. Gentleman may well not last beyond October, but any Tory Secretary of State might allow operators to opt out on a purely arbitrary basis. We do not know whether any criteria will be laid down in regulations. Again, therefore, it is clear that the old and the disadvantaged are likely to suffer.
      The new clause does not meet the need to provide a service for the elderly and the disabled. Ideally, I should like to see concessionary fares abolished because I would like everyone to have a free pass for local stage carriage services. That should be the aim of the whole House. If the actions of the Conservatives were not perpetually clouded by dogma about profit and the market, the) might realise that the hassle and the administrative problems involved in counting and issuing tokens is simply not worth it in terms of the additional revenue to be extracted from old-age pensioners. It is far simpler to give them all photocards stating that they are old-age pensioners and allowing them to travel free on any local stage carriage service. That is an equitable solution. It is also a social solution. From the Government's point of view, the economic value may be greater for pensioners in rural areas because it costs a great deal to travel 12 or 15 miles into the nearest town to visit the shops, the community

      929
      centre, the cinema or the bingo hall. Old-age pensioners simply cannot afford to do that, and even if there are concessions the tokens will run out after three or four journeys.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has said, even if the Conservatives do not accept the social need for mobility, medical evidence shows that it is beneficial and therapeutic for the elderly and the disabled to be able to get about. If the Government do not accept the general point, they should regard concessionary schemes as an important social service in that sense.
      Dr. Marek: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Whether pensioners live in the country or in the town, they have paid their taxes throughout their lives and society should help them by providing free local travel. Under this legislation, private operators will be running parallel services subject to withdrawal or alteration at whim. If a bus driver going in one direction sees more potential passengers on the other side of the street, he may turf out the old-age pensioners and go off in the opposite direction.
      The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I fear the worst. We shall see what happens after D-day in September. I believe that chaos will reign, as it did in Hereford, with buses crowding in on one another and trying to get as many passengers as possible. The old and the handicapped will suffer because they will not be able to race from one stop to another trying to catch the buses. The situation will be as chaotic as it has been in the Hereford trial area. There are fewer services in Hereford now, there is competition only on one route and many rural towns such as Kington and Presteigne have fewer services than they had before. I believe that this legislation will result in chaos. It will be difficult for the next Labour Government to end the chaos and set up a proper regulated system once again. I am not in favour of regulation for its own sake. I am in favour of regulation because of the service and the integration of transport that regulation can provide.
      Unless we reintroduce regulation, it will be very difficult for us to establish a system of completely free local stage carriage services for old people. That has always been my aim, regardless of which party has been in power. I hope that Conservative Members can agree with that aim even if they cannot agree with the methods that I would use to bring it about. It would be nice just to hear hon. Gentlemen say that such a system is desirable because it would provide proper mobility for our old people whether they live in the towns or in the country.
      I hope that the Conservative party will see the light. I do not think that the Government will do so. They are a lost cause. However, the argument is not lost yet. I hope that when we find ourselves in chaos — I assure the Secretary of State that I shall not speak for more than another minute—
      Mr. Ridley: A minute?
      Dr. Marek: The Secretary of State should listen to some sense for once. It may be presumptuous of me to say so, but I think that he might find it instructive to listen to what I am saying. When D-day arrives and the initial regime is set up, many of our old people will be severely
      930
      disadvantaged. If we cannot amend it now, or if it is not amended in another place or when it returns to this Chamber, I hope that once it becomes apparent that the legislation is making a mess of the transport system the Government will do something about it then.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Dixon: It is true that these changes improve the Bill slightly. Rather than opting in, contractors must opt out of the concessionary scheme. That is the only concession that the Secretary of State has given us, after all the discussions in Committee on concessionary fares.
      My hon. Friends and Conservative Members tabled amendments on concessionary fares in Committee, and the Secretary of State made his famous statement that local authorities should run ghost services to pick up elderly and disabled people left at the bus stops by the entrepreneurs or cowboys, as we call them, who would be more concerned about putting backsides on seats than about allowing time for the elderly or disabled to get on to the bus.
      Will the Secretary of State say why pensioners in Tyne and Wear should be treated differently from pensioners in Greater London? During the Second Reading of the London Regional Transport Bill two London Conservative Members who were concerned about concessionary passes for London pensioners challenged the Secretary of State to amend the Bill so as to safeguard those passes. At that time, the Secretary of State refused to do so. However, the members of the Committee showed much more backbone than the members of the Committee on the present Bill. They forced the Secretary of State to underwrite concessionary passes for London's pensioners.
      That is what we want for the rest of the country. What is good enough for London is good enough for pensioners in my area. Pensioners in my area and in areas represented by Conservative Members will ask why we did not provide in the present Bill what was provided in the London Regional Transport Act.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said that, although Tory Members tabled amendments about concessions for the disabled, they disappeared when it was time to vote. There was a memorable occasion, after dinner one evening, when the Tory Members rebelled. It was a bogus rebellion. One after another, the Tory Members said that under no circumstances would they accept clause 22. The Minister said that in that case clause 22 would be deleted. What was the effect of clause 22? It was the only clause that gave ordinary people the right to make representations to the traffic commissioner about the take-over by private people of bus services in their area and the probable destruction of those services.
      Concessionary passes are as important as home helps to old-age pensioners. Indeed, if the passes are withdrawn, more will have to be spent on home helps. Many people in my area, living just across the water from Whitley bay, never had the opportunity to visit that holiday resort until Tyne and Wear introduced concessionary passes.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman is becoming extremely passionate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has only just walked in. If he had bothered to listen to the rest of the debate, I do not think that he would have opened his mouth.
      Mr. David Winnick: Yes, I would.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is kicking at an open door. My hon. Friends are satisfied that concessionary pass schemes can be continued. The Opposition have spent the past two hours playing to their private galleries back home.
      Mr. Dixon: I will be perfectly satisfied about concessionary passes if the pensioners of Tyne and Wear are given the same assurance in this Bill as pensioners of London were given under the London Regional Transport Act. Why should people outside Greater London be treated differently?
      Mr. Parris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dixon: No. I am sorry.
      Mr. Parris: There are only half fares in London.
      Mr. Dixon: I believe that, apart from the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) is the only Conservative Member present who was a member of the Committee on the London Regional Transport Bill. When the Secretary of State made that provision in the Bill, it referred to restricted hours. The restrictions were lifted in the other place, so that London pensioners are now enjoying a provision that will not be given to pensioners elsewhere. We too want concessionary passes for our people.
      We cannot vote against these provisions, because they improve the Bill. But I would not say that they are good or that they are what we want. Perhaps the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, will give us some assurance that in another place the same clause will be added to the Bill as appeared in the London Regional Transport Bill.
      Mr. Ridley: We have had two interwoven debates and I shall try to deal with both. The first concerns what I might call the Brandon-Bravo clauses as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) led the campaign for them. The second concerns concessionary fares and how they can be made more sure.
      I hope that the House will bear with me if I consider the new clauses fairly fully to reassure hon. Members who have asked questions about them. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said that they are long and complex. They are, because we are dealing with a complex matter and have tried to anticipate all manner of events and configurations which might arise so that the legislation deals adequately with everything. I hope to demonstrate that I have already spotted one matter in regard to which we have not got it right. This is a very complex business.
      The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked the reasons for the word "withdrawal". She seemed to imply that, under new clause 9, an operator can apply to withdraw from a concessionary fares scheme. I am sure that she read it wrong. If an operator threatens to withdraw or gives notice of his intention to withdraw, the local authority can appeal to prevent him from withdrawing. It is the other way round from how she presented it.
      Like many other hon. Members, the hon. Lady mentioned tokens. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents local authorities from continuing with pass schemes. If they want, they can select token schemes or
      932
      stick with pass schemes. With modern technology, pass schemes become even easier and many local authorities operate them with several bus proprietors.
      Mr. Wareing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will press on the Secretary of State for the Environment the need to provide the necessary funding if existing schemes are to be continued if local authorities want them?
      Mr. Ridley: It is always a great mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He knew that I would consider concessionary fares and their financing later. The hon. Gentleman has simply wasted my time and that of the House. I shall deal with that matter at the correct time.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned delegation of the power to settle appeals. My hon. Fr: end thought that perhaps it was intended that delegation should be to the traffic commissioners and the hon. Lady thought that perhaps it should be to the traffic commissioners. It was not intended that delegation should be to the traffic commissioners. It will probably be to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which would appoint an impartial expert to decide. The reason for that is that appeals might often be about remuneration for bus passes. There can be difficult decisions about the system for rewarding bus companies which carry old people and about whether that system is sufficient, proper and accurate and reflects the cost to the bus company.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said that the bus pass in Nottingham is worth £48. If, having got a scheme in place, the local authority said that it would pay £24 rather than £48 and that the bus operators would have to carry the difference, that would be a variation of the scheme and it would be perfectly right for operators to withdraw. They would then be appealed against and I should have to make a decision. In those circumstances, I think that the House would believe it right for me to say that I am not prepared to uphold the local authority's appeal because the level of remuneration is clearly inadequate. Such matters, which are economic and could become on the verge of political, are not the right ones to be decided by the traffic commissioners. On a more technical side, it is right that there should be a power to delegate the decision of appeals to CIPFA or a body.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State convinced that, on that basis, sufficient information will be available to CIPFA? Would it not be better to have an input from a transport planning authority as this is rather more than an argument about cash? I know that the right hon. Gentleman sees all of this in terms of an argument about cash, but it is rather more complicated.
      Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady must not impart prejudice into every question. It is a transaction between a bus company and a local authority. The local authority offers money to a bus company to carry old people with passes. If the transaction is to be enforced by law, we cannot leave the price of that transaction to the local authority without providing arbitration. If the hon. Lady goes to a grocer's shop and the grocer has, by law, to sell her butter, she cannot tell the grocer that she will pay only half the asking price and that he can stand the loss. If we are passing that sort of law, we must set up an appeals procedure.

      933
      I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight about penalties. If an operator is fined under clause 16 for failing to operate a concessionary fare scheme when he has lost an appeal or has not appealed and he is fined, probably quite heavily, the second time, there would be no doubt in my mind that the traffic commissioner would find him not a fit or proper person to run a bus company, and the commissioner would have the power to take away the operator's licence. The same point was made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) who was concerned about whether the criminal sanctions were adequate. I believe that I made it clear that they are backed up by operator licensing sanctions. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point about the variation of a scheme. If a local authority varies the terms of recompense or the requirements, it is clearly right that the operator should be able to go to appeal. I am afraid that the whole process will bring the Government into a certain amount of arbitration, at least until case experience is established to the extent that schemes begin to work sensibly.
      9 pm
      The first point of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was, I thought, a slight verbal quibble as to whether the grounds upon which an operator could appeal if he wanted to come out of the scheme should be described as inappropriate or unreasonable. I think that we are trying to do the same thing. I have a slight preference for inappropriate as against unreasonable. If the remuneration of a local authority is inadequate, it would be inappropriate for somebody to have to stay in the scheme. Taking the case, say, of a long-distance luxury coach service which the local authority might seek to bring within the scheme, it would be inappropriate rather than unreasonable for that type of service to be included. With all due respect, I believe that "inappropriate" is better than "unreasonable". It is something that I would be happy to pursue with my hon. Friend over a glass of refreshment on another occasion if he feels dissatisfied.
      As to my hon. Friend's second point, he is right to draw attention to the unclear position about what happens to the operator in the course of an appeal and whether he should continue to operate the scheme. I give an assurance that in another place we shall seek to rectify that omission and to clarify the position. My preference is for those who are operating schemes and appealing against staying in to be required to stay in, and for those who are not in schemes and are required to come into them to be allowed to stay out until the appeal is determined. However, that is not the last word on the subject. We shall seek to put right in another place the point that my hon. Friend correctly made.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) raised the important point of the great new opportunities for taxi owners and, more importantly, for pensioners arising from the provisions of the Bill which allow concessionary fare schemes to include taxis running in the configuration of a bus service. As she rightly said, in many villages only a few people wish to travel, it is not economic to run a bus and at present no buses are running. Therefore, when smaller, cheaper vehicles such as taxis can run, as provided for in the Bill, concessionary fares can be applied to them also. Indeed, under these clauses
      934
      local authorities can force taxis in such a configuration to carry passengers when a concessionary fares scheme is currently running.
      I deal next with the more general argument. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said that it was his dream and aspiration that one day there would be a system of free travel for all elderly and disabled people throughout the country. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that
      "The Government is clear that our national resources simply will not stretch to the level of expenditure required for universal free travel for all those entitled to concessions".
      Opposition Members will be interested to know that I was quoting from the Labour party's White Paper of February 1979 on the subject of concessionary fares. That is why I turned on the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe and Nantwich earlier to inquire whether she has departed from that White Paper. We have already had some long speeches, and I think that we will have a few more. The White Paper states:
      "It is sometimes argued that the best way of securing uniformity is to raise all schemes to the level of the most generous, in other words to provide free travel for everyone eligible for a concession. This would however cost well over £200 million a year, even if the concession were available only in a person's own locality. Local authorities who wish to provide more generous schemes should retain the option of doing so, since local discretion to take account of local conditions and priorities is valuable and must be retained…It could be argued that it is not enough for the concession to be available for local travel and that it should be possible for concessions to be available on longer-distance journeys. On average some 30 per cent. of the passengers carried on National Travel's express service coaches are elderly and mandatory half-fare concession could lose the National Bus Company a substantial amount of revenue with insufficient compensation in terms of generated traffic."
      That is the language of the Labour party in office. That Government said, "We can't afford it. It costs too much. We shall leave it to the local authorities to top up if they wish." Where in that White Paper is the guarantee that all Labour Members have been calling for?
      In the light of what I knew of the hypocritical gramophone record that we would hear during the debate, before we got under way, I asked the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich whether she went beyond that White Paper, and was prepared to guarantee to the people about whom she is talking that the Labour party was in favour of full fare concessions in some way being written into statute. Three times I asked her the question, and three times she dodged it. Therefore, Labour Members should forget it. All their aspirations and dreams, and the fibs that they have been telling their constituents, will be shattered by the hon. Lady herself.
      Let me take the House into the full horror of it. The second time that I asked the hon. Lady what Labour's schemes for concessionary fares were, if it had the chance to put them into practice, she said that all elderly people should be able to travel freely. She added the two letters "ly". Everybody is enabled to travel freely. Nothing stops us travelling freely. However, when I asked her the third time, I said, "The hon. Lady said `freely'. Does 'freely' mean 'free'?" She sludged off it. She went into a quagmire about how much she loved public transport, and refused to answer the question. So now we know. All Labour Members can forget their bogus, hypocritical and humbug campaign about concessionary fares because the hon. Lady has made it as clear as clear can be that she believes in a half fare scheme, that it is too expensive to have a full fare scheme, that there is no guarantee that those schemes

      935
      will continue in the future, and that we should leave it to the local authorities alone, unguided, to decide on the scheme that they prefer to put into practice.
      Let me take the House through the last stages of the argument.
      Dr. Marek: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ridley: The Government have—
      Dr. Marek: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ridley: All right.
      Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way as he was referring to me in his speech. He would receive more respect from me and the House if he quoted me correctly. I talked about free travel on local stage carriage services. If the Secretary of State reads the record tomorrow, he will see that that is correct. I am not ashamed of having aspirations or dreams, as he calls them. If he does not have them, that is so much the worse for him and so much more impoverishment for him and his kind on the Government Benches.
      Mr. Ridley: There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has those aspirations. I would even claim to share them. However, the point that he must take on board is that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich does not share them. She does not have the faintest intention of imposing concessionary fares schemes on local authorities if she ever has the misfortune to find herself on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Lady made it clear before the February election, and that was when she was trying to win votes. February 1979 was a time to make promises to the electorate, but the Labour party did not promise to impose concessionary fares. It said that it could not afford it, that half fares were enough, that the matter should be left to local authorities and that it could not give a guarantee. That was the Labour party electioneering. When I asked the hon. Lady about the matter today, she said, "We have not moved from that position. I could not answer that. I would get into trouble from the deputy leader of the party, who has not sanctioned extra public expenditure." What a hypocritical campaign.
      I shall give the House the figures and the method of financing for concessionary fare schemes. For the past four years, including 1985–86, the provision made for local authorities' concessionary fare schemes was £163 million, £173 million, £188· million and £197 million. That is a progressive increase, which takes account of changes in living, but not much has changed. The outturn of local authorities for each of those years was £202 million, £219 million and £244· million.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: What about the outturn for the fourth year?
      Mr. Ridley: The outturn has not yet happened. I cannot tell the hon. Lady what the outturn for 1985–86 is. She is becoming increasingly stupid. She started off very stupid, but for her to suggest that I can give her the outturn figure for 1985–86, she must be off her nut.
      Every local authority gets a GREA for concessionary fares based on the Labour party's policy that there should be half concessionary fares throughout the land. The Labour party's White Paper of February 1979 said that there should be GREAs for all local authorities to enable them to finance a concessionary half fare for every old-age pensioner. This Government, who have not departed one
      936
      iota from that Labour party policy, instituted a UREA, based on a concessionary half fare throughout the land. The result has been that money goes to local authorities based on a half fare. Again in accordance with the Labour party's policy we have allowed authorities to go to full concessionary fares if they wish, but at their own expense and from their own finances. In no sense has that position been changed by the Government in other legislation, in the abolition legislation or in this Bill.
      Opposition Members referred to the precept control, which we shall exercise over the PTAs in their first three years of operation. In using the powers to set rate precepts, Ministers will certainly wish to take account of the existing pattern of expenditure in the metropolitan areas, especially their existing concessionary fares schemes, and they will not necessarily be bound to the levels of expenditure implied by the GRE formula. In other words, Ministers may go above it. It is wrong to suggest that our freedom of action is limited in that respect by the GRE provision. It would be equally wrong to make any provision which would prevent the authorities from making their choice of priorities within the level of the overall resources available for transport.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire West (Mr. Parris) said, these new clauses are good for pensioners because they extend the right to concessionary travel to every normal stage bus operating in a local authority which is operating a concessionary fare scheme. Therefore, in two respects we have improved on the Labour party's policy. It will now be possible to force operators to operate concessionary fare schemes, and we have said that we shall go beyond the financial provisions of the Labour party 's White Paper.
      Despite the great campaign that was fought by the Labour party, and which was still being fought this evening, it is wrong to suggest that concessionary fares will be reduced or will end because of the Bill. The truth is that the Government have improved the provision, which is more than the Labour Government did. The hon. Lady denied that she had any plans even to match what we have done. I hope that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will take this message to Lancashire, Merseyside, Birmingham and Crewe: Labour Members have been talking rubbish for the past three months.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ridley: I ask the House to approve the new clauses, which are a great improvement on what the Labour party did.
      9.15 pm
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I believe that the Secretary of State has given way.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: He has not given way. He sat down.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Perhaps he would answer—
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had sat down, and had not given way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It is difficult for me to judge whether—
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: He did not.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady raised a point of order, and I hope that she will allow me to respond

      937
      to it. It was difficult for me to decide whether the Secretary of State had given way or whether he had concluded his speech.
      Mr. Ridley: I had sat down, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall give way.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: How kind. The Government's present assessment of Merseyside's need for concessionary fares is £4· million, but that council spends £18· million on them. Is he genuinely saying that if the new passenger transport authority is rate-capped the Government would be prepared to provide that 75 per cent. difference to support the concessionary fares scheme?
      Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady must understand that there are two sources of local authority finance—Government money and ratepayers' money. The difference between what the Government pay and what is spent is met by resources out of the rates. When we set the precept limit for metropolitan areas, we will not set it on the Government's contribution—on what is left of the block grant or the transport supplementary grant. We shall set a precept that will contain an element of Government money and an element of ratepayers' money, and I assure the hon. Lady that concessionary fares will be accommodated within the precepts set.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      FURTHER PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO PARTICIPATION NOTICES
      (1) The period specified in accordance with section (Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes) (3) of this Act in a participation notice served on the operator of any service shall be not less than such period as may be prescribed.
      (2) The authority or authorities by whom a participation notice is served on any operator shall send to the operator, together with the notice, a copy of—

      (a) such particulars of the scheme to which the notice relates and of any variations of that scheme; and

      (b) such particulars of the arrangements for the time being applicable to reimbursement of operators participating in that scheme or of any class of such operators which consists of or includes operators or registered local services qualifying for fuel duty grant;

      as have been published under section 85(10) of this Act before the date of the notice.
      (3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, an operator on whom a participation notice has been served may apply to the Secretary of State for the cancellation or variation of that notice on either or both of the following grounds, that is to say—

      (a) that there are special reasons why his participation in the scheme in question in respect of the service or any of the services to which the notice applies would be inappropriate; and

      (b) that any provisions of the scheme or of any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (2) (b) above are inappropriate for application in relation to operators other than operators voluntarily participating in the scheme.

      (4) Subject to subsection (5) below, an application under subsection (3) above may be made by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the participation notice.
      (5) An operator may not make such an application unless he has given notice in writing of his intention to do so to the authority or authorities by whom the participation notice was served—
      938

      (a) if a period allowed for that purpose is specified in the participation notice, before the end of that period: or

      (b) in any other case, at any time before the date of the notice given to the Secretary of State under subsection (4) above.

      (6) The Secretary of State may if he think fit appoint a person to determine an application under this section on his behalf.
      (7) On any such application the Secretary of State, or any person appointed under subsection (6) above to determine the application on his behalf, may—

      (a) cancel the participation notice or vary it by excluding from it any service operated by the applicant: or

      (b) determine that the participation notice shall take effect without variation;

      and in any case where the participation notice is cancelled on the ground mentioned in subsection (3) (b) above shall give to the authority or authorities by whom the notice was served a notice in writing indicating in what respects the scheme or arrangements there mentioned are inappropriate for application in relation to operators other than operators voluntarily participating in the scheme. '.— [Mr. Ridley.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      '(1) Regulations under this section may make provision as to—

      (a) the form and contents of participation notices and other notices required for any purposes of sections (Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes) and (Further provisions with respect to participation notices) of this Act; and

      (b) the manner in which any such notice is to be served.

      (2) Regulations under this section may prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with applications under section (Further provisions with respect to participation notices) of his Act and may in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of that) include provision—

      (a) as to the conduct of any proceedings held in connection with any such application; and

      (b) enabling the Secretary of State to require either the applicant or the authority or authorities by whom any participation notice which is the subject of any such application was served, or both or all of them, to pay such sum as the Secretary of State may determine towards any expenses incurred by him in connection with the determination of the application.

      (3) Any sums paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (2) (b) above shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.— [Mr. Ridley.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      REPEAL OF SECTION 24(3) OF THE 1968 ACT
      '—(1) Section 24(3) of the 1968 Act (which imposes on the National Bus Company, the Railways Board and the Scottish Transport Group a duty to co-operate with one another for the purpose of co-ordinating the passenger transport services provided respectively by them or by their subsidiaries) shall cease to have effect.
      (2) In subsection (4) of that section, for the words "Subsections (2) and (3)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (2)".'.— [Mr. Ancram.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 148.
      Mr. Ancram: The new clause will repeal the statutory duty of the National Bus Company, the British Railways Board and the Scottish Transport Group to co-operate with each other to co-ordinate their services. The co-operation duty comes from the world of forced integration which the Bill will end. When the duty was designed, it had two purposes. The first was to bring about by statutory means co-ordination among the different nationalised operators so that their timetables coincided; the bus met the train, the ferry met the bus, and so on. In the absence of competitive forces, statutory duties are perhaps needed, but the Bill relies on the more efficient co-ordinating mechanism of market demand. A bus that leaves the station before the train arrives will not attract many passengers, and that discipline will create co-ordination under the new dispensation.
      Secondly, the duty was designed to avoid so-called wasteful competition — a concept which the Conservative party rejects. It embodies the idea that passengers should be given no choice. If there is a rail service, the passenger must use it; he may not be offered a rival coach service. That was an idea that was decisively rejected in the House in 1980 when we deregulated long distance coach services.
      In practice the duty under section 24 of the Transport Act 1968 has been a dead letter in that respect ever since, with the National Bus Company's and the Scottish Bus Group's competing coach services at last able to give passengers what they wanted—cheap attractive services —thereby tapping the enormous potential for increasing patronage. It is our view that this co-operation duty is no longer necessary. It would be an anachronism under the terms of the legislation. This is an important new clause, and I ask the House to support it.
      Mr. Craigen: The tabling of the new clause is a bit of cheek. Why have we got this piece of procedural queue-jumping at this stage of the Bill? If the new clause is as important as the Minister suggests, why was it not included in the original print of the Bill? The Secretary of State told us at the conclusion of the proceedings in Standing Committee that 127 amendments, mostly Government amendments, had been made. Why was there this sin of omission?
      The Government ask local authorities to co-operate with each other. What is wrong, therefore, about ensuring that the Scottish Transport Group, British Rail and the National Bus Company should have some co-operation? The Minister might like to comment on the likelihood of competition taking place as a result of the Ayr-Glasgow electrification programme. Some co-ordination in that part of the west of Scotland might be appropriate. Can the Minister tell us something about the discussions and consultations that he had with ScotRail, the Scottish Transport Group and the National Bus Company about the repeal of section 24?
      When the Scottish Minister is here, it will be useful to hear from him, because of his knowledge and expertise in Scots law, whether he confirms that any company subject to unfair competition will have interim protection until the Office of Fair Trading has made a judgment. The Under-Secretary of State rather skilfully skipped over my question earlier this afternoon.
      New clause 12 is another blow at the principle of co-ordination of approach and the integration of services for the betterment of the travelling public in the private sector.
      940
      Unless we get a convincing reply from the Minister, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the new clause.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that for the Government to produce new clause 12 at this late stage is dishonest; it is an absurd and outrageous move that will not work in practice.
      In my area British Rail has just pushed forward some good schemes to open new stations and develop new suburban services. There is concern that the Bill, far from creating competition, will lead to the development of monopoly bus operators. The Scottish Bus Group is likely to try to take over municipal bus services. The net effect will be that it will be most unwilling to deliver passengers to its main competitor, the new suburban rail services. We will finish up with a shambles when we could have a properly co-ordinated service.
      The repeal of section 24 would be very much to the detriment of consumers in Scotland. My hon. Friends and I wish to vote against it.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: In rural areas there can be problems that are not immediately obvious in urban areas. These concern integration between a bus service and a rail service to not heavily used intermediate stages, which can be very important except for those who travel to the station by car. One can get into a circular position in which British Rail says that there is not the demand to keep the station open because the public do not use it, and the public do not use it because the bus service does not connect with it at times that enable the station to be used. I have examples of this in my constituency.
      To say that demand-oriented bus services will always meet a need for co-ordination with rail services is not true in rural areas. The bus company has many other considerations to meet. It has to schedule its entire service so that the buses end up at the garage at night at the end of the shift and overtime is not paid, and start again in the morning at a time when they can take people to work. These factors have to do with the mass demand for the service.
      If the bus service does not link with the rail service, British Rail will close a station or withdraw services from it on the grounds that the public does not want to use it when it is not the case that the public do not w ant to use it but that they do not have the opportunity to use it because there is no bus to service it. That is why it is so necessary to have the co-ordinating functions in the hands of the county council, so that there is interconnection instead of rail and road being in competition with each other in the destructive sense of deliberately not making contact so that one's services can triumph over the other's.
      In the early days, when there were no bus services, there were competitive rail services in the same areas that deliberately tried to cream off traffic so that the alternative line would suffer. That is not the position today, when there is a monopoly rail service. But to rely on the pressures of competition to ensure that bus services are efficient feeders to and from rail services when they have other needs to meet for their own profitability shows, I am afraid, a lack of understanding of the needs of rural areas.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: This new clause does not only affect the rural areas. It will have a detrimental effect on transport services on Tayside, the

      941
      city of Dundee and Strathclyde. I have a letter from the then manager of the Scottish region of British Rail to the effect that, if there were unregulated competition, the future of commuter services between Arbroath and Dundee, and of the Strathclyde commuter services, would be placed in jeopardy.
      No benefit to the public interest will be achieved by repealing section 24(3) of the Transport Act 1968. We shall regress to transport anarchy if the new clause is passed. For those reasons, I shall vote against it.
      Mr. David Marshall: New clause 12 is obviously intended to correct an omission from the original Bill and is another sign of just how badly the Bill was drafted. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, it is not only the rural areas that will be affected by the new clause. The whole of the Strathclyde rail review, which has been carefully negotiated between the Scottish Bus Group, British Rail and the Strathclyde PTE, will also be affected. I wish to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to a report in The Scotsman on 15 May:
      "The Scottish Transport Group is preparing to fight a price war which is expected to break out on Scotland's most profitable bus routes when the Government opens them to free competition."
      Councillor Waugh, the chairman of the Strathclyde highways and transport committee, claimed:
      "The Ayrshire rail electrification scheme could become a £62 million white elephant"
      and said:
      "the Glasgow to Ayr service is attracting 400,000 fewer passengers a year than expected."
      Who will foot the £62 million bill for this white elephant? How many jobs on British Rail will be lost? The new clause is not needed. The Bill is much better without it.
      Mr. Fry: I wish to comment upon the very interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I do not remember my hon. Friend going into the Lobby against the Bill on Second Reading. If, however, he reads the report of his speech, he will see that his argument for co-ordinating rail and road transport is similar to the arguments of many hon. Members in favour of co-ordination between rail and road.
      I fail to understand how my hon. Friend approves of the Bill if he sincerely believes in what he has just said. He made the excellent point that there is a need for co-ordination. It is the failure to retain co-ordination in the Bill that gives me considerable reservations about it. We have been told before that if rail services are abolished they will be taken Ayer by road services, but because of the failure to provide proper co-ordination in the past my hon. Friend is suspicious about unco-ordinated services. If my hon. Friend sincerely believes in what he says, he will have to re-examine his attitude towards the Bill.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since my hon. Friend has been good enough to visit the Chamber during the last few minutes—
      Mr. Fry: I have been here most of the day.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend has not been in the House for very long. May I point out to him that the Second Reading of a Bill deals with its general principles,
      942
      while its Report stage deals with the details? It is not the general principle which will result in more appropriate—
      Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What relevance do the hon. Gentleman's remarks have to the clause under discussion?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is rather difficult to relate the two. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention will be brief and will relate more directly to the new clause that is under discussion.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It was apparently in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) to mention how I voted on Second Reading. You allowed that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a relevant observation, so it must be in order for me to reply to it.
      I was reminding my hon. Friend, who had evidently forgotten, that the Second Reading of a Bill deals with its general principles. I agree with the general principles of the Bill. We are debating not its Second Reading but a new clause. That is why I wondered whether my hon. Friend was in the House when it was moved. It is co-ordination between road and rail, not the general principle, that is being debated, so how hon. Members voted on Second Reading is out of order now, though clearly that is not the view of Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Fry: That is an excellent example of why one should not give way. Apart from chairing a Select Committee for two hours this afternoon, I have been in the Chamber for all but 20 minutes of the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that that is rather longer than he has been in the Chamber.
      I do not wish to prolong the debate. I have made my point. I was simply attempting to say that an important point of principle arose here. If the new clause has made my hon. Friend and others think again about the Bill, this short debate has been thoroughly worth while.
      Mr. Ancram: I shall briefly respond to the questions which have been raised in this short but important debate.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) asked why the new clause had not been put down before. In Committee I seem to remember him reminding us all the time that the Government had said right from the beginning of the Committee stage that during the course of the Bill we would try to improve it. This new clause is in fulfilment of that commitment and, as I have already explained, will go a long way to improving the Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman and several of my hon. Friends asked what was wrong with co-ordination. There is nothing wrong with co-ordination as long as it arises out of the transport requirements shown in the market place. What is wrong is when a certain form of transport is imposed, purely at the whim and wish of central planners, on those who wish to travel. It is precisely that sort of co-ordination against which the new clause strikes.
      The hon. Gentleman asked why the new clause was necessary. I should like him to consider the position of the Scottish Bus Group which will be competing with other bus operators. If the new clause were not to be passed, that group would find itself having to consult and co-ordinate with other services while those that it was competing against would not be required so to do. If he thinks that that is fair competition, he had better look up the meaning of the word "competition" again.

      943
      The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and my Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked about competition with rail. Even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon rail is proving successful in competition with buses because it offers better journey times to the centre of Aberdeen. The Government—this has been exemplified over the past week by a £3 million grant to improve rail services in Glasgow — are confident that the rail services will be able to compete with, and will be better for the competition from, buses. Indeed, the director of ScotRail. while making it clear that he would rather not have that competition, has shown confidence that he will be able to compete successfully.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan rose —
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has not been present all evening and I do not see why I should give way to him.
      Several hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, referred to the co-ordination of bus and train services. The market place will ensure that private operators who are operating on profitable routes will, in order to maintain that service against other possible competition, try to co-ordinate with the rail services. They will find that if they arrive either too soon before a train leaves or after it has left they will soon lose their passengers to other operators.
      In areas where there will be unprofitable services which private operators will not take up, clause 59 will give county councils and, in Scotland, the regional and island councils the power to promote the availability of public passenger transport services for the convenience of the public. In putting their services out to tender they will be able to meet the necessary requirements.
      Mr. Fry rose —
      Mr. Ancram: Time is moving on and hon. Members wish to debate other new clauses.
      The speech of the hon. Member for Maryhill points up a fundamental difference between the Labour and Conservative parties. He believes that people should be made to fit the transport system. We believe that a transport system should be designed to fit people. It is in pursuance of that that this new clause has been moved, and I ask my hon. Friends to support it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 164.

      Division No. 216]

      [9.40 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Amess, David

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Ancram, Michael

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Arnold, Tom

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Ashby, David

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Bright, Graham

      Baldry, Tony

      Brinton, Tim

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Beggs, Roy

      Browne, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Bendall, Vivian

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Burt, Alistair

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Blackburn, John

      Butterfill, John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      944

      Carttiss, Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Cash, William

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knox. David

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

      Latham, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Cockeram, Eric

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Colvin, Michael

      Lester, Jim

      Coombs, Simon

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lightbown, David

      Critchley, Julian

      Lilley, Peter

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lord, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      McCrindle, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      MacGregor, John

      Dover, Den

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Dunn, Robert

      Maclean, David John

      Durant, Tony

      Major, John

      Eggar, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Evennett, David

      Marland, Paul

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Fallon, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Favell, Anthony

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Mellor, David

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Merchant, Piers

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Forth, Eric

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Fox, Marcus

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Franks, Cecil

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Freeman, Roger

      Moate, Roger

      Gale, Roger

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Gorst, John

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Murphy, Christopher

      Greenway, Harry

      Neale, Gerrard

      Gregory, Conal

      Nelson, Anthony

      Griffiths, E, (B'y St Edm'ds)

      Neubert, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Grist, Ian

      Normanton, Tom

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Norris, Steven

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Osborn, Sir John

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Ottaway, Richard

      Harris, David

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Harvey, Robert

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Parris, Matthew

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hayes, J.

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Hayward, Robert

      Pollock, Alexander

      Heddle, John

      Porter, Barry

      Henderson, Barry

      Portillo, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hirst, Michael

      Powley, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Price, Sir David

      Holt, Richard

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Howard, Michael

      Raffan, Keith

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jackson, Robert

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Silvester, Fred

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Sims, Roger

      Key, Robert

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      945

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Viggers, Peter

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Steen, Anthony

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      Watson, John

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Watts, John

      Stradling` Thomas, J.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sumberg, David

      Wood, Timothy

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mr. Ian Lang and

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Gourlay, Harry

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Barnett, Guy

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Beith, A. J.

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Bell, Stuart

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Benn, Tony

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Howells, Geraint

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Blair, Anthony

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Boyes, Roland

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      John, Brynmor

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Buchan, Norman

      Lamond, James

      Caborn, Richard

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Campbell, Ian

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Litherland, Robert

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cartwright, John

      Loyden, Edward

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Clay, Robert

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McKelvey, William

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Corbett, Robin

      Madden, Max

      Cowans, Harry

      Marek, Dr John

      Craigen, J. M.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Crowther, Stan

      Martin, Michael

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

      Maxton, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Dewar, Donald

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Dixon, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dobson, Frank

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Dormand, Jack

      Michie, William

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Eadie, Alex

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Eastham, Ken

      Nellist, David

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      O'Brien, William

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Flannery, Martin

      Park, George

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Patchett, Terry

      Forrester, John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Foster, Derek

      Penhaligon, David

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Pike, Peter

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Prescott, John

      Fry, Peter

      Radice, Giles

      George, Bruce

      Randall, Stuart

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Redmond, M.

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Golding, John

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      946

      Robertson, George

      Straw, Jack

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tinn, James

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wallace, James

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wareing, Robert

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Weetch, Ken

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Welsh, Michael

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      White, James

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Gordon

      Smith, C. (lsl'ton S & F'bury)

      Winnick, David

      Snape, Peter

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Soley, Clive

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Mr. John McWilliam and

      Strang, Gavin

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      EXTENSION OF TAXI LICENSING IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      '(1) Where, immediately before the commencement of this section, the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages (as incorporated in the Public Health Act 1875) were not in force throughout the whole of the area of a district council in England and Wales whose area lies outside the area to which the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 applies, those provisions (as so incorporated) shall—

      (a) if not then in force in any part of the council area, apply throughout that area; and

      (b) if in force in part only of its area, apply also in the remainder of that area.

      (2) Where part only of a district council's area lies outside the area to which the Act of 1869 applies, that part shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, be treated as being the area of the council.'.— [Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      During the 18th sitting of the Standing Committee, as reported at column 996 of Hansard, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) pointed out that, because the taxi-sharing provisions were rightly restricted to licensed vehicles, people living in rural areas where taxis were not licensed would not benefit from the new provisions for sharing. My hon. Friend suggested that this might be the moment to require that taxis throughout the country should be licensed so that everyone could benefit from the provisions, and the Government agreed to consider the matter.
      Before dealing with the new clause itself, it may help if I explain briefly how taxi licensing currently operates. Taxis may be licensed by district councils under the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 applied through the Public Health Act 1875 and the Local Government Act 1972. The net effect of that somewhat archaic legislation, which we have already agreed to review, is that most district councils licence taxis throughout their areas. However, about 70 districts out of a total of 360 control taxis in only part of their areas. A further 60 councils—or about 20 per cent. of the total—do not license taxis at all. The new clause deals with that 20 per cent.
      The councils are generally in rural areas, where shared taxis might make an especially important contribution to

      947
      the provision of local transport. The new clause will extend the taxi licensing provisions of the 1847 Act throughout England—outside London—and Wales. All district councils will license taxis throughout their areas and provide for taxi ranks or other authorised places to facilitate the operation of shared taxi schemes.
      We have discussed the new clause with the Association of District Councils, which has agreed that an extension of taxi licensing seems to be the only way to ensure that all areas are placed on an equal footing.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will there be some differentiation between stands for shared taxis and stands for taxis that will operate, without the restrictions, for passengers on their own? Is the licensing arrangement so framed that certain taxis will be forced to stand at taxi ranks? Under the licensing procedure, will further safety rules be followed? The Minister will remember that there was much discussion in Committee about extending the provisions for taxis to include what would be, in effect, minibuses. Will such taxis be covered by the licensing provision in the new clause?
      Mr. Spicer: There will be no distinction between taxi ranks for shared taxis and for other taxis. That issue was debated in Committee.
      The hon. Lady mentioned minibuses. There are provisions in the Bill to deal with that subject. I hope that I understood the hon. Lady's question correctly; if not, perhaps she will intervene again. Licensing conditions—for instance, conditions of fitness—will be a matter for the district. As we have already said, we may produce some guidance on the conditions. The very tough conditions applied in London may be repeated in other parts of the country, but that will be a matter for the discretion of the districts.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: There are restrictions on who may use shared taxis. Is the Minister now saying that any taxi may operate either as a shared taxi or as a single passenger taxi provided that it takes phone bookings? There will be difficulties if the public are not clear which taxis are shared taxis. That could happen if there is no differentiation in the stands, and if the other clauses in the Bill are complied with.
      I am not clear—I do not say that there is necessarily any disadvantage involved—whether any taxi operating from any stand may perform in any capacity. There may be a difficulty with passengers sharing taxis.
      Mr. Spicer: The hon. Lady knows that there are at least three different types of sharing. There are provisions which allow taxis to act in effect as registered buses, there are provisions concerning pre-booking and there are provisions for carrying at separate fares from taxi ranks.
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [1 April] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the new clause, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

      ENFORCEMENT OF PARTICIPATION IN TRAVEL CONCESSION SCHEMES
      If during any period an operator of any service who is under an obligation under section (Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes) of this Act to provide travel concessions in accordance with a scheme under section 85 of this Act for persons travelling on that service systematically fails to comply with that obligation he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."— [Mr. David Mitchell.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON THE ABOLITION OF ROAD SERVICE LICENSING
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 111, line 1 leave out paragraph 7.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 4, 127 to 131, 134 to 137, 142, 147 and 151.
      Mr. Ancram: All these amendments simplify previous legislation. Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 do that by simplifying the drafting of the Bill. At the moment, schedule 2 contains redundant wording taken from schedule 2 to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and. no doubt, goes far back into history. There is no reason to spell out the functions of the traffic commissioner in giving the Secretary of State power to appoint deputies, and the amendments remove two unnecessary Lists of enactments. The other amendments also arise out of historical leftovers and tidy matters up. I hope that, on that basis, the amendments will be acceptable.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in page 112, leave out lines 37 to 43 and insert
      'there shall be substituted, for the words from "stage carriage" where they first occur to "1981" the words "local service (within the meaning of the Transport Act 1985)" and for the words "stage carriage" where they next occur the word "vehicle".'.
      This is a drafting amendment, which corrects an inaccuracy in an amendment made by schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which substitutes the local service terminology of the Bill for the outmoded stage carriage one. It is technical, and I commend it to the House.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: We accept many of these drafting amendments because they fulfil precisely the function that the Minister has outlined. They put into the Bill more accurate definitions that should have been in the original legislation. I hope that we shall not be told at the end of the Report stage that the Government have accepted another 128 amendments when about 127 of them arise out of their own drafting errors.
      Mr. Mitchell: I note what the hon. Lady has said.
      Amendment agreed to.

      TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS
      Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 28, at end insert
      'or goods by road within Great Britain'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 126.
      Mr. Mitchell: The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) drew attention in Committee to the need for careful examination of the required declaration of interests by traffic commissioners. He suggested that the required disclosure might be too narrow. I undertook to look carefully at what he said and if on further confirmation I found myself in agreement with the point that he made I agreed to bring forward an amendment. The amendments fulfil that undertaking. I think that they will be found agreeable to both sides of the House. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Halton for having drawn this to our attention.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), may I say that I know that he will be delighted, because he believed that it is important for it to be clear in the Bill exactly where the balance of interests lies. I am grateful to the Minister for having accepted the suggestions.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 3, leave out lines 36 to 41 and insert—
      '(1) The traffic commissioner for any traffic area constituted for the purposes of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 shall exercise the functions conferred on him by this Part of this Act and is in this Part of this Act referred to as "the licensing authority". '.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]

      TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS
      Amendments made: No. 126, in page 113, line 11, after 'passengers', insert
      'or goods by road within Great Britain'.
      No. 127, in page 113, line 20, leave out from 'that' to end of line 24.
      No. 128, in page 113, line 34, leave out from 'matters' to 'as' in line 36.
      No. 129, in page 114, line 14, leave out from 'considers' to end of line 15 and insert 'appropriate'.
      No. 130, in page 115, line 2, leave out from '113' to end of line 10 and insert—
      '(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (licensing authority for Part IV of that Act), there shall be substituted—

      (a) for the words "The person who is the chairman of the traffic commissioners" the words "The traffic commissioner"; and

      (b) for the words from "including" to "duty" the words "shall exercise the function".'.

      No. 131, in page 117, line 20, leave out from 'and' to the end of line 23 and insert
      'for the word "their" shall be substituted the word "his".'.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in page 117 leave out lines 35 and 36.
      This is a minor drafting amendment. There is in fact no need to change the word "commissioners" to "com-missioner" in section 62 of the Public Passenger Vehicles
      950
      1981 which Act relates to PSV driver licensing in the metropolitan traffic area since that section is repealed in Schedule 7.
      Amendment agreed to.

      INQUIRIES HELD BY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS
      Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 28, after 'enactment', insert 'mentioned in subsection (6) below.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
      Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of the amendment is to restrict the disclosure of commercially confidential matters to purposes not directly related to PSV operator licensing. This again I think will not be controversial. It is largely a technicality.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Why is the Minister satisfied, as he appears to be in amendment No. 7, that it will be appropriate to deal with these matters by way of negative instrument?
      "The Secretary of State may by order"
      add a reference to other enactments or remove it by use of the negative procedure. We are all aware how deficient that procedure is and how little opportunity it allows to hon. Members to raise matters. Can the Minister say why he is satisfied that it is adequate in the circumstances?
      Mr. Mitchell: It is not a matter of major substance, and therefore it is not of such a nature that one would normally expect to deal with it in any other way.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 6, in page 4, line 31, after 'any', insert 'such'.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 4, line 37, at end insert—
      '(6) The enactments referred to in subsection (5) (b) and (c) above are—

      (a) sections 12 to 21 of this Act; and

      (b) sections 22 to 25 of the Transport Act 1985.

      (7) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (6) above by adding a reference to an enactment or by removing any such reference: and any statutory instrument made in exercise of the power conferred by this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 19.

      Division No. 217]

      [10.10 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Amess, David

      Bright, Graham

      Ancram, Michael

      Brinton, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Beggs, Roy

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Bendall, Vivian

      Burt, Alistair

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Butterfill, John

      Blackburn, John

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Cash, William

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      951

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Lord, Michael

      Cockeram, Eric

      McCrindle, Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Coombs, Simon

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      MacGregor, John

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Maclean, David John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Major, John

      Dover, Den

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dunn, Robert

      Marland, Paul

      Durant, Tony

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Eggar, Tim

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Emery. Sir Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Evennett, David

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Merchant, Piers

      Fallon, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Favell, Anthony

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Moate, Roger

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Forth, Eric

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Franks, Cecil

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Freeman, Roger

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Fry, Peter

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Gale, Roger

      Murphy, Christopher

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Nelson, Anthony

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Neubert, Michael

      Gorst, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gower. Sir Raymond

      Normanton, Tom

      Greenway, Harry

      Norris, Steven

      Gregory, Conal

      Osborn, Sir John

      Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Grist, Ian

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Parris, Matthew

      Hanley. Jeremy

      Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Harris, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Harvey. Robert

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Pollock, Alexander

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hayes, J.

      Powley, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Price, Sir David

      Hayward, Robert

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Heddle, John

      Raffan, Keith

      Henderson, Barry

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hicks, Robert

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hirst, Michael

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Holt, Richard

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Howard, Michael

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Silvester, Fred

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Jackson, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Steen, Anthony

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Stern, Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Sumberg, David

      Key, Robert

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Knox, David

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Lang, Ian

      Viggers, Peter

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Watson, John

      Lester, Jim

      Watts, John

      Lightbown, David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Lilley, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      952

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

      Mr. Peter Lloyd.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      NOES

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cartwright, John

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isies)

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Wallace, James

      Howells, Geraint

      Weetch, Ken

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Kennedy, Charles

      Wilson, Gordon

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Madden, Max

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Mr. A. J. Beith and

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

      Penhaligon, David

      Question accordingly agreed to.

      REGISTRATION OF LOCAL SERVICES
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 18, after 'service', insert—
      '(aa) the period of notice in relation to the registration has expired;'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 159, in page 5, line 20 at end insert—
      '(2A) Without prejudice to any Regulations which may be made under subsection 7 (e) below, the prescribed particulars to be supplied for the purposes of registration shall incluce—

      (a) the size and type of vehicle used in the service; and

      (b) particulars of the proposed route, stopping places, terminal points, timetable and level of fares.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 9, 11 to 18, 20. 21, 23 to 28, 33, 38, 40, 60 and 110.
      Mr. Ridley: The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the legal nature of registration. Registration is the cornerstone of the system established by the Bill to ensure that competition is fair, that services are operated safely and with proper regard to the passenger, and that the local authorities have a proper base to decide which services to subsidise through tendering. Therefore, it is important that it should be legally watertight. Careful study of the clause as originally drafted suggested that it might not have been so. The status of a registration between the date on which the application for it was accepted by the traffic commissioner, and that on which it became effective, was dubious. For instance, it was not clear that it could be varied during that period, which of course it can, within. the general rules for variation of services.
      The amendments clarify that, and at the same time simplify the way in which breaches of regulation rules are described in clauses 23 and 91, which provide sanctions to operator licensing and fuel duty rebate.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The amendment will make considerable changes in the conditions of registration. I am glad that the amendment tabled by the Opposition was chosen, because we noticed yet another mistake in the Bill and wished to bring it to the attention of the House. The amendments that I tabled originally were designed to ensure that the operators of registered local bus services make proper provision for the safety and convenience not only of their passengers but of other road users in the community. The safeguards that we wish to include would make it clear that the prescribed particulars to be supplied

      953
      for the purposes of registration should include the size and type of vehicle, the proposed route, the stopping places, the terminal points, the timetable and fares.
      It is important to understand that registration is one of the few pieces of legislation that will remain in place. Therefore, not only must it be properly organised, but it must contain information that will enable passengers and the local authorities to know exactly what the service does. We suggested that safeguards should be included to ensure that the local highways authority and chief of police were involved in the proposed routes, and especially in the safety of the vehicle that would be used in the service. We wished to ensure that all roads, stopping places and terminal points used in the service met the requirements of the highways authority and especially those of the police, who are responsible for road safety and traffic management. The highways authority would also wish to be satisfied about the structural suitability of some roads for some vehicles.
      The requirement was simply that the operator should consult the relevant authorities and obtain their approval before registering the service. The Government have gone some way towards inserting the safeguards that we wanted, but I am not sure that they have gone far enough. We must know whether operators have suitable vehicles for the services that they propose to operate. It is especially important to recognise that the bus industry provides a service to those members of the community who, at some stage, are least able to help themselves. Children, the disabled, family groups with shopping and other luggage, and the elderly especially are major users of buses. In west Yorkshire, the young and the elderly account for almost 50 per cent. of bus trips. The vehicles must be safe and convenient for use by the elderly and the disabled. Considerable advances have been made in recent years in bus design. Vehicles with low steps at the entrance, gently ramped rather than stepped floors and good provision of grab rails make it much easier for those who are unable in normal circumstances to cope with some of the older buses. Seats with easy access near the front of the vehicles are typical of the modern generation of vehicles operated both by well capitalised independent operators and certainly by most public sector companies.
      By contrast, in Hereford and one or two other areas where competition took place older coaches with high steps and poor access were used. The Conservative party made great play of the suggestion that only employees who worked for an independent operator would be prepared to assist people on and off buses, but that is not my experience. Even though drivers may be prepared to help passengers, that delays other traffic. It means too that cash is left unattended. There is no substitute for properly designed modern vehicles which the majority of passengers may board and alight from without assistance.
      Other information— copies of timetables and fares tables—should be carried and should be available for passengers to inspect. Destinations should be clearly displayed on the exterior of vehicles. Passengers should have adequate information. Some of those requirements were not included in the previous legislation. The requirement to display destinations is particularly important in busy areas where many routes operate from the same street. We know from the Hereford trial that
      954
      where lots of buses are competing in a small area there is considerable confusion. I am afraid that that may be the case in future.
      Amendment No. 159 consolidates the matters that I have referred to by requiring the appropriate particulars to be supplied for the purpose of registration. Although I am glad that the Government have accepted that the amendment should be considered as part of this very large group of amendments, I would have hoped that Government Ministers might have explained in greater detail why the need for all this information to be added to the registration has been accepted. We believe that it is essential, but I do not think that Ministers have yet gone into sufficient detail to explain the change of heart on their part.
      Mr. Fry: I, too, would like to address a few remarks to amendment No. 159. If the Government intend, as I presume they do, to go ahead with the Bill in its present form it is vital that at the earliest possible stage maximum information is given to the traffic commissioner about the registration. The first part of the amendment refers to
      "the size and type of vehicle to be used in the service".
      If I am contemplating running any service — I understand that is what my right ho. Friend wants— surely I should know what kind of vehicle is to be used lby anyone else who is interested in the same route. If I discover that a minibus is being registered for a route and I believe that the route is susceptible to a considerable increase in demand—again I understand that is what the Government want — surely it is important that the maximum information is registered at the earliest possible opportunity. In that way the competition that is so dear to the Government's heart might be encouraged. Therefore, information of that nature would he very valuable at the time of registration, it would stimulate other people to consider whether they wanted to register for a parallel service over the whole route or part of it.
      Other information suggested for registration is
      "particulars of the proposed route, stopping places, terminal points, timetable and level of fares".
      Some of that may be open to discussion. Having been to Hereford I am convinced that that information is badly needed. There might have been certain stopping places in Hereford, but many of the buses did not go there to stop at them. They overtook each other to pick up people at the next bus stop, or even did not finish their journey because, having got three quarters of the way there, they saw people at the other side of the road waiting to go the other way, so they rapidly turned the bus round. I know that my right hon. Friend does not wish to encourage such behaviour.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: My hon. Friend has made some severe allegations about what has been going on in Hereford. I should be most grateful for his evidence, chapter and verse, on these incidents. Has he received complaints from passengers about this happening, and if so, on which buses where they travelling and when?
      Mr. Fry: When the Select Committee went to Hereford and Worcester, we obtained a lot of information, some of which is published in our report. The complaint that I have just detailed was certainly made, although I cannot remember whether it was in the formal evidence that was published or in the informal evidence given to us by a number of operators and members of the public. However, I assure my hon. Friend that that accusation was made.
      Mr. Conal Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom and precedent for an hon. Member to declare an interest before he speaks? I have not heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) declare such an interest, so I invite him to do so.
      Mr. Fry: I declared my interest not only on Second Reading but in a speech on an earlier amendment. If my hon. Friend had been present, he would have heard me do so.
      My suggestions tonight are designed not to sabotage the Government's proposals but to ensure that they are as workable as possible and achieve the ends towards which the Bill has been framed. It is essential for any potential operator to know what the extent of the potential competition will be. This is the most valuable thing. The point about registration is that people can see what services are proposed, and potential operators can see whether there is a living or even a profit to be made—out of identical routes, or parts of them.
      I should have thought that, in the interests of encouraging just that amount of competition that the Bill is intended to generate, the maximum amount of information should be given at the time of registration.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the shire county councils have done a short report on the Hereford position, in which they pointed out that Buchanans is still under prosecution for offences, and that there was clear evidence that no new routes had been created and that competition had been by duplication? Therefore, the points that the hon. Gentleman is making are not only valid but accurate.
      Mr. Fry: I thank the hon. Lady for that information.
      I shall not say that the whole of the Hereford experiment was a disaster, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) should not assume that. I am trying to show that there were defects in that experiment, and it should not be regarded as an ideal. Surely, the whole point of an experiment is that we should learn from the things that go wrong. I am not condemning the private operators in Hereford, but we should observe what happened there and try to see that such errors do not happen again. An essential pre-requisite is therefore the maximum of information at the time of registration.
      Dr. Marek: When about two hours ago, I said that, under the Hereford system, buses could turn round if they saw intending passengers on the other side of the road, clear off the bus and pick up those passengers and go on the other way, the Secretary of State waved his hands, laughed and rocked back in his seat as if it were a completely fatuous suggestion. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has said that precisely the same complaints were made to the Select Committee on Transport when it visited Hereford. It is not a fatuous suggestion; it is likely to happen. People have complained, which means that it has happened. Unless the Government do something about it, it will happen time and time again. Some semblance of regulation must be provided for.
      It is also interesting that when the Minister commented upon the experiment in Hereford he said that it would have been a success if Midland Red had not been allowed to cross-subsidise services in order to eliminate competition.
      956
      In Committee, many Conservative Members pointed to Hereford and said that it was a wonderful system which would be copied by bus services all over the country if the Bill were enacted. Now we are getting a little nearer the truth: that all is not rosy in the garden of Hereford. Things are going from bad to worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to this point. It shows that the position in Hereford is dismal indeed. The fact that at one time there was a great deal of competition but that now there is competition in only one corridor in the Hereford area speaks for itself.
      Mr. Clay: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the only private operator who is left in that one corridor in the Hereford area, Mr. Buchanan, has been charged with using false registration plates? It seems, does it not, to be an extremely rosy situation in Hereford.
      Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend, but as this operator is still under the threat of prosecution I believe that the rules of the House do not allow me to refer to his case.
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: I know what value the hon. Gentleman places upon accuracy. Perhaps, therefore. he will carefully read the press reports. He will find that it is not Mr. Buchanan but another operator who is charged with using buses bearing the wrong number plates and that a number of charges have been deferred until 1 July. The presumption of innocence ought to be maintained until guilt has been proved.
      Dr. Marek: I accept the hon. Gentleman's word on this, because he is the Member of Parliament for Hereford.
      Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw.
      Dr. Marek: On such a matter as this there is no need for me to withdraw. I understood that Mr. Buchanan was still under the threat of prosecution. If I am wrong, that is it. Other companies, however, spring to mind that have been prosecuted for something more serious than using the wrong number plates. However, the use of wrong number plates ought not to be allowed.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Opposition Members have always referred in derogatory terms to the Hereford experiment. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) may be pleased to hear that, with the object of proving the rumours that they had swallowed during the past few months, a large party from Nottingham went to Hereford a few weeks ago. It was made up predominantly of city officials and Labour councillors. They returned very quiet and very chastened. The word in Nottingham is that the Hereford experiment is working and that the Bill contains many good things. The hon. Member for Wrexham ought to leave Hereford alone. Labour councillors in Nottingham have come to realise that there is a lot of good in the Hereford experiment.
      Dr. Marek: I will not leave the Hereford experiment, because in my view it has proved to be an absolute disaster. We no longer have competition, except along one corridor into Hereford, and, as I said, towns such as Kington and Presteigne do not have services as good as they used to have.
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am beginning to doubt the high value that the hon. Gentleman places on accuracy, because I had to pull him up on this point in Committee. He will

      957
      be aware, in respect of the example that he regularly trots out, of Kington and Presteigne, that the reductions in service were made before the start of the trial area and were made by the county council and not as a result of bus operators pulling out. Will he not learn that, or is he programmed to trot that out regularly because somebody has given him the information?
      Mr. David Mitchell rose —
      Dr. Marek: I am always prepared to give way to local Members if they know what is going on and have first-hand information and I will give way to the Minister when I have pointed out that, while nobody can be right all the time, services in the rural areas of Herefordshire are not as good as they were. There have been no new routes and nobody has made a profit.
      Mr. Mitchell: As the hon. Gentleman is holding forth on this area, with which he seems to be particularly familiar, may I ask him to explain how, when I was speaking at a meeting recently, a gentleman in the audience said, "I wish to take the opportunity to thank the Government for having introduced the trial area in the Hereford and Worcester area, because, for the first time for 25 years, we have a bus service in my village."?
      Dr. Marek: If there is a new route that did not exist before the establishment of the trial area, the Minister should name the village and put it on the record. If I am wrong, fair enough—a contribution has been made to the debate and hon. Members on both sides of the House are wiser. I understand that no new routes have been pioneered since deregulation and since the establishment of the trial area in Hereford.
      Mr. Steen: This is like a nightmare. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman for 150-odd hours in Committee saying the same thing, it is tiresome to hear him say it yet again on the Floor of the House. Can he adjust the programme a little? Without knowing the details of the Hereford experiment, I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman should be discrediting bus companies that may have prosecutions pending against them, but against whom nothing has been proved. It might be unfortunate if he pursued the point.
      Dr. Marek: I was simply pointing out that prosecutions were pending, and nothing else that I said, or am saying, implies anything from the point of view of the two companies concerned. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Steen indicated assent.
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: When was the hon. Gentleman last in Hereford, when did he last travel on Herefordshire buses and when did he last speak to Hereford people on the subject?
      Mrs. Dunwoody: It is all anecdotal, I suppose; one cannot know unless one has actually travelled on the buses.
      Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: Now answer my question.
      Dr. Marek: I travelled in Herefordshire towards the end of last year. I cannot remember the date.
      Mr. David Mitchell: By bus?
      Dr. Marek: No, not by bus. [Interruption.] I travel by bus regularly and I travelled by bus every week on a great many occasions. Hon. Members have tried to catch me out on that, as on other matters, and again they have failed. The source of my remarks is the transport consortium of shire county councils, and I have made my own
      investigations. That body said:
      "No new routes have been created and competition has been by duplication, so that the full benefit of the increased number of buses has not been realised. Hereford and Worcester County Council did at one stage make strenuous efforts to co-ordinate some of the competing services, but agreements between operators did not begin to emerge until last year."
      I shall omit one short paragraph. The consortium continued:
      "Early morning, evening and Sunday services are very limited. No buses before 7.30 am, a handful of journeys after 6.15 pm, just three journeys on Sundays on selected routes."
      If hon. Members believe that that is a comprehensive integrated bus service, they should think again. It is an abysmal service. The citizens of Hereford do not have a service that they would describe, if asked for a proper expression of feeling, as better than the previous one. If they happened to live next to one of those three or four routes where fares are cheaper, they might describe it as a better service. I believe that the overall answer would be that the trial area has not been a success.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman has made assertions about no buses being earlier and no buses being later. Is he aware that, on the country routes, no one is worse off in terms of the arrival of buses although perhaps no one is better off? The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind, in making his dismissive assertions that the bus revenue support is lower, that the taxpayer is getting better value for money for providing the same level or a better level of service. Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that in the informal evidence taken by the Select Committee the general view of those who lived in the countryside was that no one was any worse off but that a number of people were substantially better off?
      Dr. Marek: I must continue.
      Mr. Steen: Why?
      Dr. Marek: Because the Government have imposed a guillotine on this important Bill. There are many clauses that we cannot consider. It ill befits Conservative Members to ask why, when I say that we should continue the debate.
      Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member has recounted some comments that have been passed on to him. It might be helpful if I record just three points that were made to me by passengers which bear upon the points that have been raised. A young man visiting from west Yorkshire said:
      "Where I come from the buses don't run so late and they cost more. I don't use them often here, but it is cheap and the last bus is after 11 o'clock at night."
      An RAF man said:
      "The service is fine, a lot cheaper than Cambridgeshire where I come from."
      Another person stated:
      "We only have hard leather seats in Cardiff. This is much more comfortable."
      Those are repetitive comments from people who in practical terms found it—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is going a long way beyond the terms of the amendment. No doubt the Under-Secretary of State will seek in the fullness of time to catch my eye to reply to the debate. Dr. Marek.
      Mr. Walter Harrison rose —
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr. Marek has the Floor.
      Dr. Marek: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison).
      Mr. Harrison: The Under-Secretary of State stated at the Dispatch Box, when referring to west Yorkshire—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For obvious reasons, I should not have allowed the Under-Secretary of State to refer to west Yorkshire. Perhaps I should have told the hon. Gentleman the moment he referred to west Yorkshire, rather than allowed him to continue, that that aspect was beyond the terms of the amendment. I hope that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) will not pursue that point.
      Mr. Harrison: I did not raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What you allowed was an infringement of the rules of the House. If you allowed the Under-Secretary of State to make a statement, surely I am entitled to raise a matter on the very point that you allowed. Can the Under-Secretary of State specify the area of west Yorkshire to which he referred? I represent part of west Yorkshire, which is a fairly large place.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not.
      Mr. Fry rose —
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have interventions in interventions.
      Dr. Marek: Amendment No. 159 is important because the public and the local authorities must know where the bus stops will be, when the services will run, and so on, and it is perfectly reasonable to refer to the experience in Hereford in that context. I do not deny the examples given by the Minister, but they are highly selective. No doubt I could go out asking for views and find one person who thinks that the evening service is terrible because he has been waiting for 15 minutes whereas at 5.30 in the afternoon he may think that the service is very good, but I do not believe that selective information of that kind assists our deliberations. I believe that if the views of the people throughout the Hereford area were gathered and assessed objectively the majority view would be that the trial area was not a success.
      Mr. Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the subsidised rural services in the Hereford trial area were not subject to any competition, which is completely contrary to the proposals in the Bill, and that the information required by amendment No. 159 will be all the more important if competition is to be generated?
      Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The House will note that, when the hon. Gentleman first made those comments, he was immediately attacked by his hon. Friends the Members for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and for York (Mr. Gregory) because they thought that he was saying something against the spirit of the Bill. In fact, he was doing no such thing, but he made the valid point that if we are to have deregulation—if we are to have this evil Bill thrust upon us—
      Mr. Steen: We have been discussing it for 156 hours.
      Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman does not need to tell us that. If we are to have this evil Bill, the traffic commissioner—an authority far removed from the local people — must have the information required by amendent No. 159. The requirements are perfectly straightforward. What possible objection can the Government have to a requirement to specify
      "the size and type of vehicle to be used in the service"
      or
      "particulars of the proposed route"?
      At least the traffic commissioner, the local authority and the public will know what route the operator proposes to follow. We do not want buses taking short cuts through town centres just to get ahead of the competition
      Specified stopping places are also important. In Hereford there were instances of six or seven buses trying to pile on to one bus stop. If the amendment is accepted, the traffic commissioner will have a chance to try to achieve some order out of the chaos. In that respect, amendment No. 159 is a very good one.
      Mr. Hind: We discussed this in Standing Committee. Once one starts including that kind of detail in the legislation, one loses the flexibility of regulations in which the requirements for registration can evolve according to experience. As soon as one tries to hammer these things down, the system becomes inflexible and it is difficult to have any cogent, amendable policy. Regulations are flexible and do not give rise to the same problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?
      Dr. Marek: No, I do not agree. The amendment states:
      "Without prejudice to any Regulations which may be made under subsection 7 (e) below, the prescribed particulars to be supplied for the purposes of regulation shall include".
      There is no question of an attempt to impose more regulations. It is a means of providing more information for the traffic commissioners and the local authorities. If necessary, they can talk to the independent operators in an endeavour to achieve a more coherent system. Above all, the public should receive the information. The amendment does not seek compulsion.
      I wish to bring my remarks to an end, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I have suffered a barrage of interventions from Conservative Members. I shall do so by referring to the 3 May edition of Labour Weekly, which is an informative weekly newspaper. The 3 May edition tells us that proprietor Dennis Buchanan has been charged with the fraudulent use of number plates on a mechanically propelled vehicle. That carries no implications for operations in the Hereford area and no implications for proprietor Dennis Buchanan.
      I have said that the country areas now have worse bus services than before. In doing so, I was taking up an article written by Mr. Dunbar that appeared in "Buses". If I have that wrong, I shall be the first to admit it, but I do not think that I have. Hon. Members who are interested in these matters can ascertain for themselves whether I have it right or wrong at the end of the debate.
      Amendment No. 159 is sensible as it does not seek to compel anyone to do anything. It seeks merely to provide information, especially for the public. The public should be aware of timetables so that they know when buses will

      961
      run. They should know with certainty the destinations of particular buses. Buses should not run short of their stated destinations.
      Mr. Steen: We have covered this circuit before. A commercial operator will not run a bus without stating where it is going. He will want customers and he will not run a bus that does not have a board stating its destination. He will know that no one will board it in the absence of that information. The public will not stand at lamp posts
      962
      waiting for a bus if they know that the bus will not stop. Instead, they will stand at bus stops. The hon. Gentleman's points are a lot of nonsense.
      Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman may hold that opinion, but we have heard that certain buses curtail their journeys, turn around and travel in the opposite direction. When people board a bus that is supposed to travel in a certain direction—to the destination stated on the front of the vehicle—they should be confident that it will travel to that destination. It is on that basis that I commend amendment No. 159 to the House.
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: I shall intervene briefly, and mainly to express regret at the enormous number of inaccuracies trotted out by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who detained the House for far longer than it deserved.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Infernal cheek.
      Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Lady may so describe my comment, but if the facts had been presented instead of apochryphal —
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I wish to pay tribute to the number of times that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) courteously gave way to Conservative Members. Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's courtesy, the hon. Gentleman chooses to talk about the time that my hon. Friend has detained the House. If some Conservative Members knew as much about transport as my hon. Friend. they would be much better informed.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am prepared always to acknowledge the graciousness of the hon. Member for Wrexham and that of the hon. Lady. I defer, to an extent, to the hon. Gentleman's expert knowledge. However, he has talked about my con-stituency and my county in terms of great expertise without having studied the local issues at first hand. I can only regret that it was necessary for me to intervene. However, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's gracious-ness in allowing interventions in his contribution. I regret the negative attitude that has been taken and on the basis of hearsay evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) related the experiences of councillors from Nottingham who visited Hereford. People who have visited Hereford and spoken to Herefordians—[HON. MEMBERS: "Herefordians?"] A select breed with white faces. They have been privileged to participate in the experiment from which much has been learnt and incorporated in the Bill. Nobody has said that the experiment was perfect. It was the test bed and many of the lessons that have been learnt have been included in the Bill.
      11 pm
      In amendment No. 159, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) addresses matters that have already been dealt with. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend accepts the amendment, but will he bear it in mind that the concept of the level of fares is itself an inflexibility in what could be flexible and competitive? Will the level of fares shown on the notice given with registration particulars be a maximum or a precise level? If it is a maximum, the operator can respond to competitive pressure by charging a little less and passengers will know that they will not be obliged to pay any more.
      If it is the precise amount, however, inflexibility is introduced and a statutory period of notice must be given before and any change can be made. That might be advantageous when reducing fares, but when increasing them it might unnecessarily put an operator in financial difficulty. I want to ensure that we do not pin down operators with an inflexibility that we might regret. I should be most grateful if my right hon. Friend would comment on that. Having said that, I shall shut up.
      Mr. Steen: I should like to repeat some of what I said in Committee, because amendment No. 159 has overtones of amendments which were proposed in Committee.
      964
      The difference between Conservative Members and the Opposition is that they distrust private operators. They think that private operators should be pinned down so that they are unable to make a go of things. The amendment provides that an operator must be as specific as possible to limit his scope of operation. He has to specify the size and type of his vehicle, for example. A member of the public could probably object to the traffic commissioner on the ground that an operator had to put in a replacement vehicle because his normal one was off the road. Even worse, the operator has to specify the proposed route.
      Mr. Brando-Bravo: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Steen: No, because I am on an important point. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) may not know this, but on the fast bus to Heathrow airport from Victoria coach station — the hon. Gentleman has probably not taken this bus, but I am a keen bus rider and I travel on it quite often—the bus driver is given a discretion as to which way he goes to Heathrow. I have travelled on the bus a number of times, and it has gone three or four different ways to avoid traffic jams and to accommodate various passengers. The driver asks where one wishes to alight, and he will go that way to assist the passenger. That is an example of the kind of private enterprise operation that one expects to see. However, once one stipulates that the operator has to have particulars of the proposed route, he will not succeed in offering the flexibility, imagination and enterprise that I want to see.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that if in his constituency one of his constituents, who may live at some point along the route, wished to travel from Kingsbridge to Totnes, but did not know which way the bus was going to go, that would not inconvenience the constituent? It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should have chosen the example that he did because, of course, London is not deregulated. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is saying that we do not need deregulation in order to achieve flexibility. We simply need to tell the bus drivers on express coaches that they can go whichever way they like.
      Mr. Steen: The hon. Lady always manages to twist any sensible point and turn it round to her advantage, but that is something for which she is well known.
      If a passenger were travelling from Kingsbridge to Totnes—and the hon. Lady knows Totnes because she lived there for many years, and she is still referred to, although I will not say in what way, by various constituents — on a private enterprise bus which had nothing on the front, which is what the hon. Member for Wrexham was suggesting, the passenger would travel on that bus only once if it ended up at Ivybridge. Any commercial operator travelling from Kingsbridge to Totnes who took on board a passenger who asked for Totnes but ended up in Ivybridge would not be used by that passenger again. That is market forces, and that is what the hon. Lady does not understand. A person may be inconvenienced once, he may find himself in Ivybridge and not Totnes, but he would travel on that bus only once. Thereafter, he would make other arrangements.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend in his earlier remarks drew attention to the limitation that might be imposed on an operator if he had to specify the size and type of vehicle to be used, resulting in a rigidity in that

      965
      operator's performance. Would my hon. Friend accept that in our authority we have conventional double deckers, conventional single deckers and what we now call minibuses of 30 seats and less? It seems to me, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, that it is perfectly in order for an operator who has adequate vehicles of all types to make his own decision in the light of the circumstances as he sees them on which type of bus is appropriate, not only for a particular route, but for the time of day. It may be more appropriate to have the double decker at peak and the mini bus for the late night service.
      Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend, as always, makes interventions that are particularly pertinent and relevant. His intervention is far more appropriate than was that of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
      This point is relevant not only to bus services but to airline services also. Airlines do not put on a jumbo jet with one person on board — unless it is the British Airways back-up to the shuttle service in order to make the maximum loss. In private enterprise bus services, one uses a small bus when there are a few people travelling and a big bus when there are a lot of people travelling. That is what private enterprise is all about. One does not waste money if one can avoid it.
      The hon. Lady also said that one did not need to deregulate the bus service when I gave the example of the express bus. She gave a good example, but she does not understand that that express bus service to Heathrow is competing against the London Transport Al and A2 bus, and the underground. That is why the express bus has been made flexible. That is to attract other—
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The London bus service is not part of the Bill.
      Mr. Steen: The hon. Lady is right.
      Dr. Marek: I do not object to what the Al, A2 and A3 buses do, but the hon. Gentleman must admit that it is a specialised service. All that the bus does on the way from the airport is drop people off, not pick them up. The buses have a predestined route because there are bus stops en route. I have no objection to that, but airport buses and similar operations are not comparable to local stage carriage services. Does the hon. Gentleman admit that?
      Mr. Steen: I have been drawn off the point that I was making. Whenever the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich intervenes, one get drawn off the point. I want to get back to what the amendment is about. I should like to deal with what the hon. Member for Wrexham has just said. I think that he must be on autopilot this evening because he is saying the same thing over and over again. At least we know that we are safe with him.
      The amendment refers to stopping places. Let me imagine the Kingsbridge to Totnes bus with no sign on the front, trundling along the country lanes of Devon, and a little lady standing there with her shopping basket—
      Mr. Gregory: And an umbrella.
      Mr. Steen: And an umbrella. The lady is standing by a lamp post waiting for the bus to stop, but she does not know where it will stop or where it will go. That cannot make sense. If one is running a private enterprise service, one will want customers. That is what private enterprise
      966
      and profit is about. One makes profits only if one has the passengers. but if nobody knows where the buses are going and where they stop, one does not get any passengers at all. When the amendment states that one should specify the stopping places, it is as if a private operator would wish to pass by all the potential passengers that he could take, to keep driving to an unspecified destination. The hon. Member for Wrexham cannot be serious in suggesting that that is what is required in the Bill.
      The amendment goes on to say that there must be "terminal points". Of course there must be terminal points. The bus has to stop sometime. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it goes on and on, passing all the passengers, going past all the lamp posts, and all the bus stops? What is supposed to happen if the amendment is passed?
      The amendment also refers to a timetable. Not only is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the bus has no destination on the front, that it keeps going past the bus stops and the lamp posts. and goes round and round non-stop, but nobody should know when it is travelling. Is he suggesting that that is why the amendment is needed? Clearly it is nonsense. The amendment also says that there should be a "level of fares". That cannot apply because the bus would not have any people on it because nobody would know where it was going and where it stopped. Therefore, one would not need to know the level of fares because nobody would be paying anything.
      Therefore, the amendment is clearly completely inappropriate. It is not needed because no private enterprise operator could run a service without explaining the very things that the amendment is designed to do. I, and I am sure, my hon. Friends, believe that it is complete poppycock. It is Alice in Wonderland. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is now laughing with her hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) because she realises what a ridiculous amendment it is. It adds nothing to the Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wrexham has associated himself with it, because it does not do him the credit that we have come to expect after listening to him for 150 hours in Committee.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Ridley: We have had a most amusing debate on amendment No. 159. I feel much like the man on the bus in Cambridgeshire, to whom my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred. I feel as if I have been sitting on a hard leather seat, as I often do when I listen to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who takes one rather slowly through the countryside, stopping at every available bus stop and not hastening to his destination.
      If I were to pontificate about the bus services in Wrexham as freely as the hon. Gentleman does about those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), it might rouse the hon. Gentleman to a higher level of activity and a higher tempo. The way in which he freely tells the House what is happening in Hereford—when he later admits that he has not been there for a year and never on a bus, but has read some Labour party propaganda that tells him that the whole thing is rather a bad egg, without the faintest apology to my hon. Friend who lives there, holds surgeries there, receives letters from his constituents and knows what is happening in Hereford with a degree of detail and technical knowledge—makes him look like a man from the moon.

      967
      We have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman about Hereford, and not enough from my hon. Friend who knows the position there. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would stop that nonsense. Tomorrow I shall take pleasure in telling him what I think about the bus service in Wrexham on whatever amendment he likes. Although I have never been to Wrexham, or on a bus there, and know nothing about it, I am as willing as he is to pontificate.
      Mr. David Marshall: Will the Secretary of State tell the House when he has been on a bus?
      Mr. Ridley: I have been on a bus, but I confess with great candour never in Wrexham. However, that will not stop me from emulating the hon. Gentleman and commenting at great length on the nature of bus services in Wrexham, although I have never been there, or in a bus.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman has never been on a bus.
      Mr. Ridley: In Wrexham.
      Many requirements are needed to register services. There are two points of difference between the two sides of the House. The first is whether the requirements of what must be registered should be in the statute, or whether they should be spelt out in regulations under the statute. The hon. Lady would like them spelt out in the statute, whereas the Government think that it might be more sensible and flexible to spell them out in regulations.
      The second difference between the two sides relates to the details that it is necessary to register when an operator registers a service with a traffic commissioner. We do not differ much about what should be the details of registration and, on reflection, the hon. Lady may agree that it is better to have some flexibility. Regarding the details of what should be registered, we shall gain experience of what is and is not necessary to be registered, what could be inimical to commercial confidentiality if it were registered, and what should be changed from time to time. There is not much difference between us about the substance.
      The Government's policy of seeking to make regulations which set out the things which should be registered may be more flexible than the hon. Lady's more rigid policy of spelling them out in the statute.
      What details should be registered? The hon. Lady's amendment specifies the size and type of vehicle, the proposed route, the stopping places, the terminal points and the fares. The purpose of registration is to inform local authorities which services will run in their areas in terms of geography—where they will run—and in terms of time and frequency—when they will run. That is the essential information that must be known before a local authority can augment bus services by going out to tender for some routes.
      It is not entirely obvious that the size and type of vehicle should be registered, because a competitor, having discovered that someone had registered a large vehicle, might decide to register to run a smaller vehicle because he believed that there was less trade. Furthermore, he could then hold the first operator to the condition that he run a larger vehicle, because that was the vehicle that he registered. Therefore, the first operator might lose the flexibility to change to a smaller vehicle if he discovered that the trade would support only a vehicle smaller than
      968
      the one he registered. We should not be too firm about this. We are happy to consult the industry and the local authorities to try to determine exactly what to specify in the regulations as to size and type of vehicle.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) was right to say that it is unnecessary to be specific about the proposed route. However, it is necessary to he specific about where the route starts and ends. If wished to go from Kingsbridge to Totnes, I should be extremely keen to arrive in Totnes. I would not mind which route the bus took. A service which was radio-controlled might hear that there were some people in a village off the main route who wished to be picked up. Therefore, the bus would go off the main route and pick up the four or five people there, because the driver would know that they wished to go to Totnes. Should it be a breach of registration if the operator shows the flexibility that is in the interests of the passengers?
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Ridley: Yes, always. Perhaps not always, but I will give way now.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am deeply grateful to the Secretary of State for this newly found — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am deeply grateful for the great courtesy that he always displays. I am not clear whether he is seriously telling the House that he cannot envisage the necessity for people who live along the route between two small towns to know the route that the bus will take. We could be talking about anywhere in South Hams, where there are even fewer people, more lanes and higher hedges, but in this case we are talking about two towns. Is he saying that, if it suited another group of passengers. the bus could be diverted here, there and everywhere? Does he seriously imagine that no one will get off the bus in between the two towns about which we are talking?
      Mr. Ridley: I feared that the hon. Lady did not understand the amendment, but I was sufficiently courteous and generous not to accuse her of that. But it is now clear that I should have done so, because she does not understand the amendment.
      We are not talking about the information given to passengers in timetables or fare tables, which can be posted anywhere. We are talking about the service that must be registered with the traffic commissioners. My point is that an operator who registers the service, and then decides that it would be better to take a different route, advertises it in his timetable and gets customers interested, would be accused of breaking the registration conditions simply because he had not registered the alternative route. They are two different things. One is what the operator says to his passengers and the other is what he registers.
      Mr. Fry: Earlier in his reply my right hon. Friend said that information had to be registered to enable a local authority to see where it would need to augment the service. If the route is not predetermined, how on earth can the local authority decide whether that service needs to be augmented? In my constituency, there might be a bus service from Wellingborough to Kettering but if the people in Little Harrowden, for example, did not know whether the service was to go through the village, they would not know what to expect. There might be a supplementary service from Little Harrowden to serve either Kettering or

      969
      Wellingborough, or there might be a bus service through it. Surely it is important for the local authority to know, so that it may decide whether it needs to augment that service.
      Mr. Ridley: I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend says, but there is a balance between saying that the slightest alteration in the route registered to be run by an operator 42 days before he starts will involve him in a possible breach of the registration, and the other side of the argument, which is that of course the local authority has to have a very clear idea of where routes will be. To achieve a balance between those two laudable objectives, all I am asking for is a certain flexibility after consultation in drawing up the regulations, rather than having the matter specified in statute.
      Mr. Steen: I can speak only of my own constituency. I am advised that over the years bus services have declined. Instead of having regular bus services between Totnes and Kingsbridge, there are fewer and fewer buses. Surely my right hon. Friend would agree that all rural constituents want more buses. If there are new services because of the Bill and because private enterprise produces more buses, people will be delighted, even if the buses deviate a little from the proposed route. Surely the purpose of the Bill is to increase the number of buses and to create more services between rural towns and villages. That is what people want and should get.
      Mr. Ridley: I agree with my right hon. Friend. On Second Reading, when we were discussing buses and taxis, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) intervened to describe the two as totally separate. She said that buses were for the poor and taxis were for the rich, and she wanted to know why I was worried about taxis. When one thinks about it, there is not all that much difference between a bus and a taxi.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Just the price.
      Mr. Ridley: No. Again, I do not think the hon. Lady is up to date. I think she will find that shared taxis under the Bill will be cheaper for the individual than many municipal bus services. When we consider the small number of people in hamlets in South Hams and other such places who do not have cars, we find that it is almost a taxi service that is required in many cases. Therefore, we should not be too disparaging about taxis.
      In regard to the list of items in the amendment, terminal points are vital. Stopping places are important, but we want a little flexibility about where they are to be. Again the timetable is important, but we do not want to make it so rigid that half a minute's deviation could amount to a breach of registration.
      In regard to the level of fares, there is an exception in my agreement. I am not convinced that fares need to be registered and that the failure to charge the precise fares in the registration should render an operator liable for sanctions against his operator's licence. I agree that many local authorities, and especially those that run concessionary fares schemes, may need to have details of the fares charged, but if they do, they can obtain them as part of the concessionary fares arrangements themselves. I do not want to make registration more of a burden than it need
      970
      be, and experience of fares notification under the present licensing system suggests that the information is not, in practice, used. I am not convinced on the point of fares.
      The difference between the two sides is small. The question is whether it should be done through statute or regulation. Regulation is more flexible and takes account of the points that have been made by hon. Members, and I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich will not press her amendment to a Division.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 5, line 20 at end insert—
      '(3A) In subsection (2) above "the period of notice", in relation to any registration, means, subject to regulations under this section—

      (a) the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection; or

      (b) if longer, the period beginning with the registration and ending with the date given to the traffic commissioner by the operator as the date on which the service will begin.'

      No. 11, in page 5, line 29, leave out from 'particulars' to end of line 34 and insert 'are registered under this section'.
      No. 12, in page 5, line 37, leave out from 'section' to `the', in line 38.
      No. 13, in page 5, line 39, leave out from 'shall' to first `the' in line 42 and insert
      'become effective—

      ' (a) on the expiry of the period beginning with the date on which the traffic commissioner is notified of the variation or, as the case may be, cancellation and ending with the date determined in accordance with regulations under this section; or

      (b) if later, on'.

      No. 14, in page 5, line 42, after 'given', insert 'to the traffic commissioner'.
      No. 15, in page 5, line 43, leave out 'commencement'.
      No. 16, in page 5, line 44, leave out 'discontinuance of the service' and insert 'cancellation'.
      No. 17, in page 6, line 7, after 'subsection', insert `(3A) or'.
      No. 18, in page 6, line 10, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
      (c) that in such cases or classes of case as may be prescribed—

      (i) subsection (2) above shall have effect as if for the reference in paragraph (aa) to the period of notice there were substituted a reference to such period as the traffic commissioner may determine;

      (ii) subsection (6) above shall have effect as if for the reference in paragraph (a) to the date on which the period mentioned in that paragraph is to expire there were substituted a reference to such date as he may determine;'. — [Mr. Ridley.]

      Mr. Craigen: I beg to move, amendment No. 177, in page 7, line 12, leave out 'and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 178, in page 7, line 13, at end insert
      ';and (d) any Passenger Transport Executive.'.
      Mr. Craigen: In the inimitable words of Ministers, this is a drafting amendment. We think that as the PTEs are

      971
      to be responsible for the tendering arrangements, they should be notified, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree.
      Mr. Ridley: Yes, I agree. However, the amendment is not well drafted. I accept the principle of it and will table an amendment in the other place to meet the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
      Mr. Craigen: I thank the Secretary of State, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

      APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC REGULATION CONDITIONS TO LOCAL SERVICES SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 6
      Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 7, line 14, leave out
      'at the request of any traffic authority' and insert
      'If a traffic authority asks him to exercise his powers under this section in relation to a particular traffic problem'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 22, 29 to 32 and 44 to 46.
      Mr. Mitchell: I hope that the House will welcome these amendments, which have been tabled in the light of the lengthy Committee discussions on the traffic regulation provisions of the Bill. I would draw attention particularly to the specific mention now made of road users— which I can assure hon. Members includes the important group of pedestrians—and of the interests of elderly persons and disabled persons. I would point out that this provision is not confined to the interests of elderly and disabled passengers.
      The amendments in this group also give new rights to traffic authorities—that is, county councils in England and Wales and regional or islands covered in Scotland — other than the one which requested a traffic regulation condition. Such authorities may of course be very much affected by a condition restricting the use of a road in a neighbouring county which diverts buses across the border. Such an authority affected may, under the amendments, get the traffic commissioner to hold an inquiry at which it can make representations.
      The remaining amendments are consequential or for clarification. One, for example, puts it beyond a peradventure that the traffic commissioner has discretion to impose different conditions from those originally requested by the traffic authority, although directed to the same problem. Accordingly, I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Wareing: Although I do not believe that Government amendment No. 22 should be opposed, serious reservations ought to be expressed about the Government's failure to do far more to meet the needs of the elderly and the disabled. They are treated as an afterthought. No matter what the Government may say in support of their amendment, the disabled not only should be safeguarded from danger on routes and at predetermined stopping places but should be consulted about their overall needs before routes and stopping places are deternined. The amendment is totally inadequate
      972
      because it fails to meet the needs of the disabled. Competition means that the needs of the disabled will, all too often, be ignored.
      During the proceedings in 1984 on the London Regional Transport Bill the Government decided that a separate clause should be included to protect the needs of the disabled in London. I see no reason why the disabled on Merseyside, in Tyne and Wear or in any other part of the country should not be treated in the same way as the disabled in London. The disabled do not expect facilities for wheelchairs to be made available on the buses, but they expect the needs of partially disabled people to be taken into account. The opportunity should not be missed not only to ensure that the disabled are catered for on existing routes but to provide a code of practice which will make appropriate provision for those who are partially disabled.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am sure that all hon. Members were hoping that, just for once, a little graciousness would be shown by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who pressed in Committee the cause of the elderly and the disabled. But when something is done there is not one word of congratulation. The Government have paid regard in particular to the needs of the elderly and the disabled. At this late hour there ought, surely, to be one word of enouragement from the hon. Member for West Derby.
      Mr. Wareing: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member. This amendment refers only to the routes and stopping places of registered services. There should be a similar provision covering the rest of the country as the Government were pressed, even by their own back-benchers, to provide for London. I am not referring to a minority of the population but to an estimated 10 per cent. —5· million—of the population, many of whom are disabled or partially disabled. A considerable number of others—for example, people carrying heavy shopping bags and mothers with young children—have difficulty in getting on and off buses.
      In terms of easy access, I understand that ordinary buses cater for 74 per cent. of the population. However, using the provisions of the London Regional Transport Act, a double-decker bus is being designed to which 90 per cent. of disabled and partially mobile people will be able to gain access. In other words, London is being dealt with differently from the rest of the country. The Minister should announce his intention to add a provision in another place to improve the Bill because the amendment will not adequately provide for the needs of the disabled.
      Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman referred to his remarks being directed to non-registered services. What did he have in mind?
      Mr. Wareing: The amendment is not concerned with all services. During the passage of what is now the London Regional Transport Act, the Government inserted an amendment which covered all services.
      The disabled people's organisations regard this part of the Bill as completely inadequate, and if they have not written to the Minister telling him that, they have certainly written to me. More is required than the amendment permits. The disabled are being threatened with apartheid, as it were, in that they will not be able to enjoy the facilities which the rest of the community enjoy.
      No matter what the Minister says, the amendment does not deal with all their problems; it deals only with routes

      973
      which are predetermined. Indeed, the disabled are included only as an afterthought. May we be assured that all services will be covered? The trouble is that there has not been consultation with the bodies representing the disabled. Because of that, the Bill does not cover their needs.
      Mr. Steen: The Under-Secretary has been rather silent about the needs of cyclists. Under this part of the Bill, does he expect the commissioner to have regard to those needs?
      Mr. Dixon: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Steen: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) even on the question of cycling. Any comments by the Minister at this late hour on that point would be well received by the 90,000 commuter cyclists who come into London daily.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Gregory: I should like to develop the arguments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) who, sadly, was not heard with sympathy by the House. Government amendment No. 22 does little to make adequate provision for the elderly or disabled. Under the provisions of the amendment, their interest will be taken into account with regard to the routes and stopping places of registrable services. They will be accounted for only if the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the laying down of traffic regulation conditions is necessary, first, to prevent damage to road users, and, secondly, to reduce severe traffic congestion. Any reference to the interests of disabled and elderly persons will take place at a late stage and in a restricted manner. It will not affect the provision of transport in the first place, nor will it ensure that the needs of the elderly and disabled are taken into account as a matter of course.
      It is important to distinguish between facilities that provide access for wheelchair users and those that provide access for people who are partially mobile. It is not realistic for every mainstream transport service to be fitted for the former—I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) in his usual lucid way — but it is realistic for the mainstream transport services to provide facilities to accommodate the latter. I am principally concerned with the latter in relation to this amendment.
      As the hon. Member for West Derby revealed, a considerable proportion of the population-10 per cent. — is disabled in one way or another. I am therefore seeking improvements that will be of direct benefit to 5· million people. It is estimated that between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of people who need to use public passenger transport require the additional facilities making access easier for people who are partially handicapped. The vast majority of elderly people are assisted by improved facilities, but so are people with heavy shopping and mothers with young children and pushchairs. We should not see that group in isolation.
      London Regional Transport has recently launched a new design for a double-decker bus, aimed at meeting the needs of disabled people, except wheelchair users. One feature which I have seen is split-front entrances which make the bus accessible to 95 per cent. of the population, compared with 74 per cent. for current vehicles.
      974
      I am anxious that provision for people who are partially mobile is not seen as a matter to be dealt with exclusively by the social services. It could become too easy for operators to see disabled and elderly people as the responsibility of local authority services. Facilities can and should be provided on mainstream transport at little cost. Furthermore, such a provision would substantially reduce the number and availability of vehicles open to disabled people. This focus would promote a policy of segregation and not integration. It is not cost-effective to provide separate services for people whose disabilities can be accommodated on mainstream transport services.
      A further valid argument for improving transport access is that, in the long run, it can bring financial benefit to the health and social services. It is well documented that people who are house bound, either through age or disability, suffer from depression and other ill-effects. Consequently, they require more medical attention than they might if they were able to lead an independent and more active life. Welfare services need to be taken to people who are house bound. If those people could go to the services themselves the burden on those facilities would be reduced.
      A considerable amount has been done by successive Governments to widen opportunities for disabled people. However, full advantage cannot be taken of those opportunities unless disabled people are able to get to them. In recent years various technological advances have been made which could be of great benefit to disabled people wishing to use public transport. It is vital, therefore, to ensure that there is some mechanism whereby operators are made aware, first, of the need to ensure that their buses are accessible and, secondly, of the improvements that can be made to increase accessibility.
      In conclusion, this is still a far cry from the general provision for the needs of disabled people to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland referred in his undertaking in Committee on 23 April. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has been busy since then, but I hope that the Government will take note of the spirit of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides today. The assurances have not been forthcoming in time for the Report stage. I trust that the Government in their inestimable wisdom will provide those assurances in the other place.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I wish to support briefly but very warmly the views expressed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory). I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) expressed the views of all who sat through the Committee stage. Time and again amendments about the needs of the disabled were moved and time and again we were told that the Government were sympathetic and that they would consider the points and come forward with proposals either on Report or in another place.
      The amendment is simply not good enough. We need more consideration for the disabled long before the point to which the Government's amendment relates. I hope that the Minister will give one simple undertaking today—that if the necessary provisions are not introduced on Report they will be introduced in another place. I believe that hon. Members on both sides would be prepared to accept that undertaking.
      Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) seemed to be under some

      975
      misapprehension as to the scope of the Government amendment. I remind him that all stage fare services outside London have to be registered, so the scope of the amendment is considerably wider than his speech implied. I am glad that he did not seek to oppose the amendment.
      I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) about the importance of the elderly and the disabled, who number some 5· million and constitute a very large part of the market. That figure, of course, includes a huge range of people, from the severely disabled who require special chairs and therefore special transport to people with arthritis and the many elderly people who have difficulty walking very far and negotiating steps but who would certainly not refer to themselves as invalids and would indeed take offence if anyone sought so to categorise them.
      The elderly form the largest single group of bus users in this country-followed by the lower paid travelling to and from work and students-and no operator will fail to appreciate the importance of that large section of the market. I assure the hon. Member for West Derby and my hon. Friend the Member for York that the Department maintains a very close working relationship with representatives of the disabled and we shall be consulting those representatives about the review of the construction and use regulations to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: That is for the future. We want an undertaking from the Minister that he will do something now, before the Bill goes to another place.
      Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has mentioned the form in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the changes that he proposed to introduce. I have nothing to add to that, save to say that what my right hon. Friend said stands. He said that something would be done either here or in another place. This stage is not yet completed. The hon. Lady will have to wait, but she can be assured that we shall not renege on any undertakings that have been given.
      The hon. Member for West Derby said that the disabled were being threatened with a form of apartheid and that the Bill does not deal with all of the disableds' problems. Of course it does not. No one ever suggested that it would. However, we are doing more for the disabled in the Bill than has been done in the past. It is a useful step forward and one which will be widely welcomed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) talked about cyclists' needs. The amendment refers to road users and apart from the places where there are separate cycle tracks, cyclists are road users. Therefore, my hon. Friend need have no qualms on that score.
      I have much sympathy with the aims of my hon. Friend the Member for York. I recognise his deep concern for the disabled. The amendment deals only with traffic regulations and conditions and it is not the place in our consideration of the Bill that my hon. Friend can expect to find the reassurance that he is seeking on the broader front to which he referred, with which, as he knows, I have much sympathy. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

      APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC REGULATION CONDITIONS TO LOCAL SERVICES SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 6
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 7, line 14, clause 7, leave out 'at the request of any traffic authority' and insert
      'If a traffic authority asks him to exercise his powers under this section in relation to a particular traffic problem'
      No. 20, in line 16, after 'provision', insert 'of services'.
      No. 21, in line 17, leave out from 'apply' to end of line 19 and insert—
      '(lA) In this section -service" has the same meaning as in section 6 of this Act.'.
      No. 22, in line 24, leave out from 'considering' to end of line 33 and insert
      'the traffic in the area in question, that such conditions are required in order to—

      (a) prevent danger to road users; or

      (b) reduce severe traffic congestion.

      (3A) In considering what traffic regulation conditions to apply to a particular area a traffic commissioner shall have egard in particular to the interests of—

      (a) those who have registered under section 6 of this Act services which are or will be operated in the area;

      (b) those who are, or are likely to be, users of such services; and

      (c) persons who are elderly or disabled.'

      No. 23, in line 36, leave out 'registrable'.
      No. 24, in line 37, leave out 'such'.
      No. 25, in line 38, leave out 'such'.
      No. 26, in page 8, line 3, leave out 'registrable'.
      No. 27, in line 5, leave out 'registrable'.
      No. 28, in line 12, leave out 'registrable'.
      No. 29, in line 19, leave out from 'from' to 'or' in line 21 and insert—

      '(i) the traffic authority which made the request under subsection (1) above;

      (ii) any other traffic authority likely to be affected by traffic regulation conditions determined in response to that request; or

      (iii) any person who has registered under section 6 of this Act a service which is or will be operated in the area in question;'.

      No. 30, in line 27, leave out from 'if' to end of line 28 and insert
      'and person mentioned in subsection (8) (a) above'.
      No. 31, in line 32, leave out from `to' to first `a. in line 33, and insert
      'exercise his powers under this section in relation to'.
      No. 32, in line 35, leave out 'the conditions in question' and insert
      'any conditions determined by the traffic commissioner in response to the request'.
      No. 33, in line 44, leave out local'.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 9, line 9, leave out 'regional or islands council' and insert
      'council of any region or islands area which lies wholly or in pan within that area'.
      The amendment brings the definition of "traffic authority" in Scotland into line with that in England and Wales. There is only one Scottish traffic area, which has several regional and island councils in it. The Bill might be read as implying that there are several traffic areas but only one council in each. The amendment will avoid any such reading.
      Amendment agreed to.

      ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC REGULATION CONDITIONS
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 13, leave out 'PSV operator's licence' and insert 'licence or permit'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 36, in page 9, line 14, at end insert
      'or, as the case may be, to that permit.'.
      No. 39, in line 21, leave out TSV operator's licence' and insert `licence or permit'.
      No. 41, in line 27, leave out `PSV operator's licence' and insert 'licence or permit'.
      No. 59, in page 20, line 27, clause 21, leave out subsection (4).
      Mr. Ancram: When a traffic commissioner has determined traffic regulation conditions they are attached to the PSV operator's licence. That applies to any operator who has registered a local service that is affected by the conditions. Holders of community bus permits can also register local services. Under the amendments, traffic regulation conditions will be attached to a permit in the same way as they are to an operator's licence.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to the Minister. I take it that the amendment follows the discussion that took place in Committee on this issue.
      Mr. Ancram: Indeed.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 9, line 14, at end insert
      'or, as the case may be, to that permit.'.
      No. 38, in line 15, leave out from beginning to 'is' in line 17 and insert—
      '(2) In this section
      "licence" means a PSV operator's licence;
      "permit" means a permit under section 20 of this Act; and a licence or permit is relevant for the purposes of this section if a local service registered under section 6 of this Act by the holder of the licence or permit'.
      No. 39, in line 21, leave out `PSV operator's licence' and insert 'licence or permit'.
      No. 40, in line 25 after third 'the', insert 'particulars of the'.
      No. 41, in line 27, leave out 'PSV operator's licence' and insert 'licence or permit'.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]
      Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 9, line 36, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
      '(6) Where the operator of a local service is unable both to operate the service in accordance with the particulars of the service registered under section 6 of this Act and to comply with—

      (a) traffic regulation conditions; or

      (b) any other provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (5) above;

      any failure to operate the service in accordance with those particulars which occurs at any time before the expiry of the prescribed period beginning with the coming into force of the conditions or provision shall be disregarded to the extent to which it is attributable to his having to comply with the conditions or provision.'.

      Subsection (6), as drafted, dispenses an operator from the requirement to run as registered if he is prevented from
      978
      doing so by traffic regulation conditions. The amendment widens the dispensation to cover prevention by provisions under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 or, for instance, a similar local Act. It also narrows the dispensation by limiting it in time. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

      APPEALS AGAINST TRAFFIC REGULATION CONDITIONS
      Amendments made: No. 44, in page 10, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (ii) and insert—
      '(ii) any traffic authority aggrieved by the decision in question; and'.
      No. 45, in page 10, line 33, after 'right', insert—
      '(bb) any traffic authority aggrieved by the decision;'.
      No. 46, in page 11, line 5, at end insert—
      '(10) In this section "traffic authority" has the same meaning as in section 7 of this Act'.— [Mr. Ridley.]
      It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [1 April] and the resolution [21 May], to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government to the end of part II of the Bill.

      IMMEDIATE HIRING OF TAXIS AT SEPARATE FARES
      Amendments made:
      No. 47, in page 11, line 7, leave out from 'In' to 'for' in line 9 and insert
      'the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1A) below, a licensed taxi may be hired'.
      No. 48, in page 11, line 16, at end insert—
      '(lA) The circumstances are that—

      (a) the taxi is hired in an area where a scheme made under this section is in operation;

      (b) the taxi is licensed by the licensing authority for that area; and

      (c) the hiring falls within the terms of the scheme.'

      No. 49, in page 11, line 17, leave out 'the appropriate'.
      No. 50, in page 11, line 25, leave out from first 'in' to the end and insert
      'that area.
      (2A) For the purposes of this section, a licensing authority may make a scheme for their area and shall make such a scheme if the holders of at least ten per cent. of the taxi licences issued by the authority request the authority in writing to do so.
      (2B) Any scheme made under this section shall—

      (a) designate the places in the area from which taxis may be hired under the scheme ("authorised places");

      (b) specify the requirements to be met for the purposes of the scheme in relation to the hiring of taxis at separate fares; and

      (c) if made otherwise than by the Secretary of State—

      (i) include such provision, or provision of such description, as may be prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph;

      (ii) not include provision of any such description as may be prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.'.

      No. 51, in page 11, line 26, leave out from 'Any', to `may' in line 27 and insert
      'scheme made under this section'.
      No. 52, in page 11, line 36, leave out 'so hired' and insert
      'on any such hiring.
      (3A) A licensing authority may, subject to subsection (2B) above, vary any scheme made by them under this section.
      (3B) Any scheme under this section, other than one made by the Secretary of State, and any variation of such a scheme shall be made in accordance with the prescribed procedure.'.
      No. 53, in page 11, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 54, in page 12, line 3, after 'section', insert—

      ' (a) the hiring of a taxi falls within the terms of a scheme if—

      (i) it is hired from an authorised place; and

      (ii) the hiring meets the requirements specified by the licensing authority as those to be met for the purposes of the scheme; and

      (b) '

      No. 55, in page 12, line 6, leave out 'determinations' and insert 'a scheme'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS I0 TO 12
      Amendments made: No. 56, in page 14, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 14.
      No. 57, in page 15, line 7, leave out 'local'.— [Mr. Ridley.]

      FURTHER PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNITY BUS PERMITS
      Amendment made: No. 59, in page 20, line 27, leave out subsection (4).— [Mr. Ridley.]

      CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO PSV OPERATOR'S LICENCE
      Amendment made: No. 60, in page 22, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

      ' (a) the operator has failed to operate a local service registered under section 6 of this Act; or

      (b) the operator has operated a local service in contravention of that section; or'.— [Mr. Ridley.]

      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

      Transport Bill
      12 midnight
      Mr. Peter Pike: I should like to present three petitions concerning the Transport Bill, which we have been discussing today.
      The first has been signed by 2,786 people of north-east Lancashire who use the Burnley and Pendle, Ribble and other transport undertakings. The petition concludes that the petitioners:
      pray that your Honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for Transport to withdraw the Bill immediately.
      The second petition is from the Burnley and Pendle Joint Transport Committee and is signed by its clerk, Brian Whittle. It runs transport services in Burnley and Pendle and has an agency agreement with all of the other transport undertakings that operate transport in the area. The petition concludes:
      Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill.
      The third petition is signed and sealed by the chief executive of Lancashire county council and concludes:
      Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill.
      Those petitions show the strong feelings of the people of north-east Lancashire and Burnley and their belief that the Bill will mean the end of passenger transport in the area.
      To lie upon the Table.
      12.3 am
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: I also would like to present a petition concerning the Transport Bill which the House has considered today. I present it on behalf of the South Advisory Committee for Public Passenger Transport in Greater Manchester—an organisation that represents many local groups. The petition is signed by members of the committee, all of whom have massive expertise in public transport. The petitioners:
      pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement proposals of the White Paper on buses.
      I should like to put on record my firm support for the petition.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Live Animals (Export)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
      12.4 am
      Mr. Michael Hancock: I feel that I should be speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box as this is a matter that both major parties have refused to take seriously and to deal with properly. They have been sadly reluctant to get to grips with it and to introduce legislation to solve what many people consider to be a barbaric and inhumane way of treating animals.
      I should like to pay tribute to those who have been involved with me in a campaign to ban the export of live animals for further fattening and slaughter—Mrs. Hilda Homes, Mrs. Kay Reid, Mrs. Eillen Bazeet and Mrs. Hunter. They have all worked tirelessly in the past decade on behalf of the animal rights movement to motivate people to support their campaign and that of countless thousands of others who want the Government to act as they suggest.
      The history of my involvement in the city of Portsmouth goes back five years when the city council of Portsmouth instigated a Portsmouth City Council Bill to ban the export through its own ferry port of animals for slaughter and further fattening. That got as far as Second Reading when Mr. Speaker intervened and ruled it out of order, and the Bill failed. It was a great disappointment to the thousands of people at that time and, indeed, to the ratepayers of Portsmouth as a whole who put aside about £30,000 to finance the passage of the Bill. There was no blowing in the wind—as it came from Portsmouth, it was very much a real commitment to ensuring that something was done. There was bitter disappointment that the Bill did not succeed in its passage through Parliament and become law.
      We come then to what the Government's attitude has been. At that time, the then Secretary of State and, indeed, junior Ministers in his Department, said that there was insufficient and inconclusive evidence that cruelty had taken place or that anything was wrong with the law. I am glad to say that that can no longer be said to be the case.
      The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in the recent document which it submitted to the EEC Commission for it to evaluate and act upon, gives ample evidence to support two points. First, as the RSPCA says, it has never tried to prove cruelty, and the Government have tried to hide behind that. The document proves conclusively that there is something wrong with the existing legislation, and that United Kingdom laws do not take account of EEC regulations. They do not cover the export and transportation of poultry, rabbits and, in some instances, dogs, and they do not give sufficient cover for those animals such as pigs and calves which are transported abroad from this country.
      There is evidence now that the trading of these vehicles on the continent leads to great abuse and to much cruelty. In my own city, I have witnessed a lorry transporting animals which has lost a two-week-old calf out of the top tier when it has gone round a bend off the motorway at great speed. These animals, when they have come out of the truck, have had to be humanely destroyed at the roadside in the city of Portsmouth. This is a disgrace to any society. We should all be ashamed of these occurrences. That was not a one-off event by any means.
      982
      I have correspondence from people who have travelled on ferries from this country to the continent. They all express concern about the way in which animals have been treated during the various journeys that they have undertaken. A Mrs. Deadman of Burgess Hill in Sussex wrote that her distress was such that she could never again experience a Channel crossing from a ferry port if she thought that animals might be travelling in the same boat. She said:
      "The distressed nature of the animals was something that had to be seen to be believed."
      I have another letter from a Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds of Hull:
      "My husband and I recently returned from our holiday in northern Brittany. It was a most enjoyable trip, but was marred by the sight of what greeted us on our way out of Britain at the ferry port in Portsmouth — lorry-loads of young calves crammed tightly into huge two or even three tiered transporters waiting to be loaded on to the ferry. Many of these calves were clearly distressed, some of them climbing on top of others trying to eat the dirty straw that was hanging down from the floor level above. Others were straining to poke their noses through the bars, trying to catch the droplets of rain that were falling outside the wagon on to their tongues. Is this sort of scene really necessary? Are we not, after all, supposed to be a civilised nation?"
      So the letter continues. There are hundreds of other letters from people similarly affected by what is a disgrace to this country. None of us should be proud of that.
      For present statistics of the numbers of animals exported, again I quote the experience that I know best, in my city. About 42,000 calves were transported from the ferry port last year alone. Many other animals have passed through, many in bizarre situations, to say the least. The way in which some of the animals are transported leaves much to be desired.
      I do not know whether the Minister is aware that at present lorries come over from France empty, and tout their services round the country, picking up animals from market town to market town. After they get a full load, they return to France. Some of the animals will have been on the vehicles for the best part of a week. That is not an uncommon occurrence for poultry. The Minister might shake her head, but I am sure that if she were to speak to senior officers in the RSPCA they would readily clarify the matter for her. It is a regular occurrence. The same can be said of rabbits.
      Those who want the campaign to come to fruition want a total ban on the export of those animals. I should like to see the trade stopped once and for all. I should like to see the Government take a stand against the EEC. I do not want to hear the argument that we cannot opt out, in a form of UDI. Of course we can. If something so opposed to our nature as cruelty to animals to this extent is going on, of course we have a every right as a nation to act.
      The facts about the expense speak for themselves. It is not easy for people who would like to see the trade persist to argue that it is cheaper to export the animals from here alive only to see them further fattened and ultimately slaughtered. There is now substantial evidence that people in this country can rear animals for the veal trade, have them slaughtered here and subsequently transported to the continent, and make substantial profits. There is no legitimate argument on expense. We should not have to try to hide behind such an argument when we know that something is so blatantly wrong. It is not a legitimate point for any Government of any party to suggest that they want to see scenes such as the ones depicted in the recent RSPCA booklet, in which one sees animals straining their

      983
      heads, when they have been restrained by bars to prevent physical movement. It is a disgrace to all of us. We should all want something to be done about it.
      The Portsmouth City Council Bill was supported by a majority of the city council. I hasten to add that it was a Conservative-controlled city council, which was enlight-ened enough to see that there was so much public clamour for action to be taken that it responded magnificently by promoting the Bill. It was the council's intention to ban the trade once and for all because it felt that the citizens of Portsmouth did not want it. I believe that the majority of people in the country do not want the trade to continue.
      On 3 December last year, I was present with a group of petitioners from south Hampshire who presented over 30,000 signatures to the Prime Minister at Downing street, urging her to step in and take action on their behalf. If we were to poll in other parts of the country, I do not believe that the response would be any different. There is massive and overwhelming support for the view that something needs to be done. What do we get? We get answers such as one recently given to me by the Minister concerning what the Government intend to do about legislation:
      "We have no plans to introduce further implementing legislation. I consider that our current legislation fulfils our obligations under these directives, and so protects the welfare of animals in international transit within our jurisdiction."
      It is no good to suggest that one can opt out just because the animals have left this country. In the main, they are travelling in British vehicles, with British drivers, and have emanated from British farms and British markets. To suggest that it does not matter what happens when they get off at the other side is sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that nothing is wrong. It is disgraceful for anybody to suggest that it is all right that that should persist. I urge the Minister to take the first steps of many that will lead me to believe that there will be a more enlightened and humane attitude towards the welfare of animals.
      I hope that the obvious evidence makes it impossible for the Government to neglect their responsibilities. I plead with them not to argue against the case of the RSPCA, which is conclusive and has been corroborated by people who have followed similar trails to those of the RSPCA and members of the media who have been sufficiently enlightened to show the British public what is happening. Those letters and the response from those who travelled on the ferries are but the pinnacle of the pyramid of disgust that we allow this trade to persist.
      I plead with the Government not to suggest that adequate legislation is available outside the United Kingdom to ensure that animals are properly catered for. Those of us who care and have looked into the matter know that that is not true, but is nonsense. We know that animals are not watered or fed at the appropriate times, and that they travel great distances on the Continent when they leave the ships at the ports of entry. We have it in our power to do something. If we do not, it simply means that we are prepared to allow animals to continue to suffer, and that the good name of this country will be dragged down. It also means that we are prepared to ignore the consistent clamour for positive steps to be taken to eradicate the trade.
      It is no good suggesting that all those involved in animal rights are middle-class do-gooders, animal lovers and vegetarians. No one is suggesting that animals should not be used to feed people who choose to eat meat, or that
      984
      we have a bigoted outlook towards others' actions, life style and feeding habits. We merely seek to point out that there is sufficient evidence and enough going for us as a nation who care about animal welfare to start taking positive steps to introduce legislation which will tighten existing rules and abide by the directives laid down.
      I hope that the Government will have sufficient courage to say that they are not prepared to let the trade continue. By the end of the Parliament, I hope that the Government will have been courageous and responsive enough to take action and place proposals before the House, which will permanently outlaw from our shores the exportation and transportation of live animals for further fattening and, ultimately, for slaughter. Only then will they be seen to respond to our natural trait to care about fellow creatures on this earth.
      Mr. Michael Lord: Why should we?
      Mr. Hancock: We should do that because it is wrong to allow the trade to persist. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself if he does not share that view.
      I hope that the Minister will respond in a way which will lead me to believe that I have not wasted a journey tonight, and that this cruelty will not be with us for much longer.
      12.18 am
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I welcome this opportunity to reply on behalf of the Government about our policy on exports of live animals. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made many points, and I shall try to deal with them as briefly and as comprehensively as I can.
      All matters relating to the export of live animals from Britain touch an immediate and raw nerve among much welfarist opinion. The House and, indeed, the country are properly interested in a wide range of farm animal welfare topics, ranging from the protection of animals on farms, their welfare at markets and in transit, and measures adopted to safeguard them on export. My diet has been completed by hon. Members' interests in frogs' legs and pate de foie gras.
      However, a common thread through all of those topics —welfare protection on export is no different— is the widespread misunderstanding about the legislative controls that apply, the Government's record and interest, and the true—rather than exaggerated—position about animals and their welfare. It is perfectly understandable that emotions run high, but I am troubled that a central core of fact is missing from the debate. In the next few minutes, I wish to outline the present position in law and practice on the export of live animals.
      Several hon. Members may have seen the press and television items in recent weeks about the export of calves to France. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South referred to them. Although I appreciate that he has been worried about this matter for some time, it was obviously those items which sparked hon. Members' interest. Since that first feature on BBC television news, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South has asked several parliamentary questions, and has now moved this debate.
      What the BBC report about calves going from Portsmouth to St. Maio failed to make clear was that the

      985
      calves filmed in that news item—like all food animals exported from Great Britain — travelled under the protection of detailed statutory controls which apply to livestock in international transit. Those measures are laid down in Community legislation in two major council directives of 1977 and 1981. Both directives follow and build upon the earlier Council of Europe convention on the welfare protection of animals in international transit, which was signed in 1969. We took an active part in the development of the convention, and pressed for and secured the Community implementing measures.
      It is also a pity that the BBC programme failed to explain precisely what Britain does to implement its Community obligations. We apply a series of welfare controls before the animals leave the country. That is why it is difficult to believe what the hon. Gentleman said about lorries coming to Britain and then travelling back with animals that have been on board for a week. First, before they travel abroad, all food animals are rested for a minimum of 10 hours in an export lairage. We approve and license all of those export lairages, and they are all close to the ports of departure. Secondly, when they are in the lairages, animals must be suitably fed and watered. We require certificates to show that that has been done. Next, all animals intended for export must be inspected by one of the veterinary officers in my Department. No animal that is considered unfit for export may form part of any consignment for export. Three-tier lorries are banned.
      Mr. Hancock: Is the Minister saying that those directives cover poultry and rabbits, and that international law is implemented in the same way as for calves and horses?
      Mrs. Fenner: There are regulations relating to poultry, but I am referring to calves, since they were the subject of the BBC programme.
      Mr. Hancock: Does the Minister agree that they do not cover poultry and rabbits, and that lorries touting for poultry pick-ups can carry about 3,000 birds at one time?
      Mrs. Fenner: No. We have regulations relating to poultry transit, and perhaps I may send the hon. Gentleman a note so that he is aware of the facts.
      In 1984, for example, my veterinary inspectors rejected about 3,200 animals, including more than 2,800 calves, because they concluded that the welfare of those animals could be at risk if they were to travel. The veterinarian then issues a certificate of fitness to accompany those animals which may go. Finally, loading for export is supervised by an official who checks on the transport conditions.
      Our veterinary staff and the marine superintendent are active in advising exporters and their hauliers on matters such as the design of lorries and their equipment, and on the accommodation to be provided for animals so that the international requirements of the directive can be met. There is a good deal of detail covering such matters as ventilation, the provision of adequate space and so on. This is important since—as hon. Members will know—nearly all of the exports of live animals from this country go via roll-on/roll-off lorries on ferry boats.
      The final stage at this end is the formal recording on the international welfare certificate of the time of loading. The certificate, issued by us in the form of an export licence
      986
      under the Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981, accompanies all animals on their journey abroad. In this way, it is possible for the veterinary and other authorities in the countries of transit and destination to enforce the measures laid down in Community law concerning feeding and watering intervals.
      Those, then, are the measures that we take at our end to comply with the directives as an exporting country and to enable their provisions to be met abroad by importing countries.
      Let me turn now to the measures abroad. I must stress at the outset that it is a matter of legal fact as well as sheer practicality that the responsibility for the animals' welfare abroad is for the country which imports them or through whose territory they are moved. Some hon. Members may wish otherwise, but they would do well to recognise this central fact.
      The Community measures, which all member states are bound to apply, set out extensive provisions about transport conditions. These govern a number of key requirements such as feeding and watering intervals. Since there has been a good deal of public interest about the exact provisions on feeding and watering animals in transit. I shall say precisely what these are.
      Community law states, first, that during international transport, livestock must be fed and watered at "suitable intervals". Secondly, the same law requires that animals must not be left for more than 24 hours without food and water but this period can be extended if the journey to the point of unloading can be completed within a reasonable period thereafter. This may seem to some hon. Members a fairly flexible provision, but in the view of international veterinary and scientific opinion it is what is needed to protect animal welfare. Some flexibility is clearly sensible because the need to feed and water animals will depend critically upon the individual circumstances of their journeys. The need will vary according to the age, species and sex of the animals, the prevailing temperature and humidity, the stocking density and the length of journey onward to the final destination.
      The working of the directives, as I say, reflects what international veterinary opinion considers is necessary to protect the animals' welfare. It is intended to ensure that animals are not caused suffering either by unduly lengthy deprivations of food and water or from the disruption and undoubted stress that they could suffer from being unloaded in circumstances where it would be better from the welfare viewpoint for them to be taken straight on to their final destination.
      The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South has made several suggestions. I understand his concern on these points. But—as is evident from what I have just said—the variety of different factors involved rules out, in my view, the possibility of, for example, establishing limits for suitable intervals for feeding and watering that could suitably be enshrined in legislation for universal application. However, I believe that the member states of the Community should collaborate to observe transport conditions and to compile the best possible advice, based on experience, on what is needed for the various species in particular. Co-operation of this kind is indeed envisaged in the directives in any cases where there appear to be welfare problems in transit.
      A number of the recent press and TV items have given the impression that we are indifferent to the reports produced by welfare bodies such as the RSPCA, which I

      987
      have studied at some length. The society has sent us over the years copies of some 140 of its "trails" of consignments of animals exported to the continent, the majority of them dealing with exports which pre-dated the introduction of the 1981 directive. We have given copies of the society's reports, as and when we have received them, to the veterinary authorities in the countries concerned. My officials have had meetings in Paris with the French veterinary authorities and with their counterparts in Rome. All sides remain in close and constant contact. The French authorities, in particular, have carried out extensive inquiries on aspects of the society's claims about our shipments of calves to France. But its analyses and reports to us bear no relation to some of the recent headlines.
      First, the French authorities concluded that the directives have not been contravened in any of the cases reported. They were perfectly satisfied that the animals reached their destinations without welfare problems, that they were in excellent shape and that they developed well on French farms. These conclusions do not bear out the extreme inferences about animal suffering that some have drawn from the RSPCA trails. However, this is not surprising when one considers that the RSPCA trails—despite some claims that are made — do not contain observations about the physical condition of animals that might suggest that their welfare suffered through lack of feeding at "suitable intervals". Nor does the RSPCA's information on journey times in itself point to contraventions of the feeding and watering requirements of Directive 77/489/EEC.
      That is the general picture that emerges. Many more specific points have been raised, particularly in relation to the trail that was followed by the BBC. I must say, having studied that film in some detail, that I would very much doubt whether there were welfare problems with the consignment concerned. It involved an onward journey of about 70 miles from the French port of St. Malo, to the final farm of destination. I think it very doubtful that the welfare interest of the calves would have been served by
      988
      their being unloaded en route for feeding. I am not sure whether the RSPCA has submitted a report to the French veterinary authorities. As yet, we have not received representations from the society on the particular export consignment portrayed in the programme.
      The television report also carried reference to calves going to Italy without feeding and watering. Indeed, at one stage the reporter said that the calves that he was following, off the Portsmouth to St. Malo ferry, were lucky not to be going on to Italy without nourishment—again, more confusion. Calves going to Italy—and we have exported about 7,500 since the policy change in January 1984 — would be going through Le Havre or Calais not St. Malo.
      As regard the trade to Italy, we shall continue to maintain extensive contact with all the companies and hauliers taking calves overland to Italy. As I have previously explained to the House, we have set up monitoring arrangements so as to gather information on the welfare conditions of animals sent to Italy overland. This has involved the fullest co-operation of the French and Italian authorities, who have been most helpful. On selected consignments, with minimal pre-notification, we arrange for our veterinarians to accompany shipments of calves and other animals from ports here all the way to foreign farms. Again, the results that we have been obtaining show that there are no significant welfare problems, the animals travel perfectly satisfactorily with appropriate food and rest at approved lairages in France en route, and that they develop and fatten well.
      I should perhaps now mention the RSPCA's complaint to the European Commission. This has been given some media coverage—
      The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Planning Decisions (Appeals)
  Planning Decisions (Appeals)
  Temporary Land Use (General Development Order)
  Temporary Land Use (General Development Order)
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Widdicombe Inquiry
  Widdicombe Inquiry
  Green Belt Land
  Green Belt Land
  Wildlife Inspectorate
  Wildlife Inspectorate
  Housing (London)
  Housing (London)
  Parking Fines
  Parking Fines
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Support Costs
  Support Costs
  Annual Review White Paper
  Annual Review White Paper
  Licences
  Licences
  Agricultural Land (Thurrock)
  Agricultural Land (Thurrock)
  Beef
  Beef
  Intervention Stores
  Intervention Stores
  Sugar
  Sugar
PRIME MINISTER
  Soviet Jews (Emigration)
  Soviet Jews (Emigration)
  Dalton
  Dalton
  Engagements
  Engagements
TRANSPORT
  Woolwich Ferry
  Woolwich Ferry
  Roads (Design Standards)
  Roads (Design Standards)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Bottesford Bypass
  Bottesford Bypass
  Railway Lines and Stations
  Railway Lines and Stations
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Vehicles (Accident Statistics)
  Police Vehicles (Accident Statistics)
  Jonathan Michael Bloch
  Jonathan Michael Bloch
  Cumbria Police
  Cumbria Police
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Remand Prisoners (Court and Police Cells)
  Remand Prisoners (Court and Police Cells)
  Durham Police Force
  Durham Police Force
  Television Licence Fee
  Television Licence Fee
  Missing Persons.
  Missing Persons.
  Subtitles (Television)
  Subtitles (Television)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Bradford)
  Schools (Bradford)
  16-Plus Examination
  16-Plus Examination
  Academic and Related Salaries
  Academic and Related Salaries
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Dispute)
  Teachers (Dispute)
  Nurse Training
  Nurse Training
  School Laboratories (Visual Aids)
  School Laboratories (Visual Aids)
  High-technology Specialists
  High-technology Specialists
  Schoolchildren's Strike
  Schoolchildren's Strike
  Open University Council
  Open University Council
  Mathematics Teaching
  Mathematics Teaching
  Higher Education (Access)
  Higher Education (Access)
  Higher Education and Student Grants
  Higher Education and Student Grants
  Mature Students
  Mature Students
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Universities (Grants)
  Universities (Grants)
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Remuneration of Teachers Act
  Remuneration of Teachers Act
  University Teachers (Salaries)
  University Teachers (Salaries)
  School Reorganisation (Trafford)
  School Reorganisation (Trafford)
  Mandatory Awards
  Mandatory Awards
  Playgroups
  Playgroups
  Institute of Hearing Research
  Institute of Hearing Research
EMPLOYMENT
  Truck Acts
  Truck Acts
  Community Programme (Warwickshire)
  Community Programme (Warwickshire)
  Job Release
  Job Release
  Home Purchase and Improvement Grants
  Home Purchase and Improvement Grants
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Elderly and Handicapped People
  Elderly and Handicapped People
  Medical Cards
  Medical Cards
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Thoracic Medicine (Consultants)
  Thoracic Medicine (Consultants)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Cervical Screening
  Cervical Screening
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Glaucoma
  Glaucoma
  Water (Nitrate)
  Water (Nitrate)
  Private Residential Homes
  Private Residential Homes
  Subtitles (Television)
  Subtitles (Television)
  Wirral Council (Statutory Functions)
  Wirral Council (Statutory Functions)
  Continence Advisers
  Continence Advisers
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Fostering
  Fostering
  Drug Tests
  Drug Tests
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Blood Donor Facilities
  Blood Donor Facilities
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Yuri Balovlenkov
  Mr. Yuri Balovlenkov
  Syria (President's Speech)
  Syria (President's Speech)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Equipment Provision
  Equipment Provision
  Licences
  Licences
  Blank Cassette Tapes
  Blank Cassette Tapes
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Bosphorus Bridge
  Bosphorus Bridge
  Japan (Trade Restrictions)
  Japan (Trade Restrictions)
  South Africa (EC Code of Conduct)
  South Africa (EC Code of Conduct)
SCOTLAND
  Special Alcohol Units
  Special Alcohol Units
  Homes for the Elderly
  Homes for the Elderly
  Killearn Hospital Site
  Killearn Hospital Site
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Drink Offences
  Drink Offences
  Edinburgh Relief Road
  Edinburgh Relief Road
  Licensing Law
  Licensing Law
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Average Wage
  Average Wage
  Management Consultants
  Management Consultants
  Share Schemes
  Share Schemes
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Data Processing
  Data Processing

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

Lord Kimball
Sir Marcus Richard Kimball, Knight, having been created Baron Kimball, of Easton in the County of Leicestershire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Manton and the Lord Soames.

Drug Abuse: Minister's US Visit
2.49 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the recent visit to the USA by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office to study drug abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, my honourable friend visited the United States of America from 7th to 14th April. He had a series of meetings with representatives of several federal departments and agencies and with other organisations and individuals. His discussions focused on enforcement issues, including the forfeiture of drug traffickers' assets, American experience of the cocaine problem and international aspects. The visit was valuable both in identifying matters of common interest and in highlighting developments of potential significance for this country.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that Answer. May I ask him whether he can enlarge on one or two of the more important points that his honourable friend learnt during his visit to the United States, in particular with regard to the cocaine problem there?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that my honourable friend learnt too much perhaps for me to encompass in one fairly brief reply, but I know that he found particularly valuable his discussions about cocaine and about the tracing, seizure and forfeiture of assets. Cocaine poses a very grave threat to this country. Last autumn the Customs established a cocaine target team to step up the fight against drug smuggling, and we are also examining the case for posting liaison officers to Latin America to improve liaison and intelligence. I can tell my noble friend that the rise in cocaine misuse in the United States over recent years has been fairly dramatic.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, after what was obviously an extremely useful visit to the United States by his
158
honourable friend, can the Minister say anything about what was learnt of the problems of treatment centres in the United States for drug abusers and also what sort of campaign he may have heard about, especially to educate youngsters against this grave danger?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, treatment was certainly one of the aspects that my honourable friend discussed in America. I think that there are some similarities between the way that we carry out treatment and the way that they carry out treatment there. The lessons learnt by my honourable friend will of course be put to the group now considering the matter in conjunction with the Minister in the Health Department.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, bearing in mind the number of tourists visiting both this country and America, can my noble friend say whether our embassy in Washington and the American embassy in this country are communicating about the problem?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am certain that they are.

EC Voting: Dooge Report
2.52 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the fact that their attitude is shared only by the Governments of Greece and Denmark they will now reconsider their opposition to the recommendations of the Dooge Report to the European Council on the principles of voting in the EEC Council of Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Dooge Report reflected the views of the members of the committee which produced it and not necessarily those of their Governments. We consider that more use will need to be made of the majority voting provisions of the treaties in the englarged Community. These matters will be discussed between Heads of Government at the Milan European Council in June.
Lord Gladwyn: Yes, my Lords; but do the Government not realise that, apparent rejection of all the compromises (if one may believe the report), and simple insistence on the letter of the so-called Luxembourg compromise—that is to say on the principle of a potential political veto on all Council decisions—which has resulted in the Community's working only at half-cock with a majority of 10, will make it increasingly difficult for it to function at all after the increase in membership to 12 after the accession of Spain and Portugal?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have of course proposed some qualification with regard to the Luxembourg compromise. I draw the noble Lord's attention to that. It is on page 26 of the report.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that an amendment of the Treaty of Rome itself may be more efficient in bringing about what the noble Lord wants rather than at this stage removing the veto? The affinity among the nations is not such as to make it a community; it is merely a meeting of nations. Does he agree that to remove the veto now may well do more damage than if it is allowed to continue until we have more experience of how it works and have amended the treaty?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think my noble friend makes a good point. Among the other proposals that we endorsed, and indeed brought forward, during the deliberations of the Dooge Committee was the one that provided for members to take greater advantage or make greater use of the possibility of abstention in accordance with certain articles of the treaty. I hope my noble friend will find that helpful, too.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as there is now a proposal to hold an inter-governmental conference on a new draft treaty for European union, can the noble Lord say, first, whether the Government are in favour of reform and, secondly, in the event that there is such a conference, whether they would be represented there?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have not closed our minds to some element of reform in this matter. However, as for an inter-governmental conference, we are not clear what that conference could achieve that could not be achieved by a European council.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that in the field of financial control Her Majesty's Government have already surrendered the right to veto under Article 2 of the Fontainebleau agreement, where majority rule now has to be applied?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt right, but of course the position is not quite as black and white as he makes it out to be.
Lord Morris: My Lords, my noble friend may not know, but can he hazard a guess as to what the governments of Greece and Denmark may feel about being referred to in the noble Lord's Question as, "only.…the governments of Greece and Denmark"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think it is for me to speculate on what view such governments may take upon the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will answer the other part of my question concerning the proposal to hold an intergovernmental conference; namely, will the Government attend such a conference if it is held later on this year?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question because the conference has not yet been agreed upon. Indeed, the Government's view is that it would serve no particularly useful purpose.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, if I am right in thinking, from what the noble Lord the Minister has said, that the Government are considering possible modifications of the Luxembourg compromise, in accordance with some of the proposals made on pages 25 and 26 of the Dooge Report, is it not a fact that at the end of the last paragraph on page 26, it says:
"When a Member State considers that its very important interests are at stake, the discussion should continue until unanimous agreement is reached",
which of course is the Luxembourg compromise? Then it says:
"This proposal is supported by Mr. Møller, Mr. Papantoniou and Mr. Rifkind"—
in other words, by the United Kingdom, Greece and Denmark? Is that a fact? It seems to me that it is an uncompromising statement of support by Her Majesty's Government of the Luxembourg compromise. One can hardly read it in any other way.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps this is not the right moment to go into the detail of what the noble Lord has said. However, if he looks at the paragraphs ahead of the one that he read out he will see that they, too, are relevant.

Small Businesses: New Technologies
2.56 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further action is being taken to help small businesses understand the management and financial implication of applying new technologies to manufacturing processes.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Department of Trade and Industry is joining with Barclays Bank and PA Technology to present a series of seminars in all parts of the country, helping small firms to understand these issues. The department also provides extensive business and technical advisory services for small firms, and has recently published a new booklet summarising the support we give and the grants available to innovate export and invest.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, whilst thanking my noble friend for that good news, may I ask whether he can say how many small firms have taken advantage of this service? What is the charge made to these firms? During the last year, how many inquiries in this area have the Department of Trade and Industry received from small firms?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, during the last year the department received approximately 270,000 inquiries and arranged 35,000 counselling sessions. Of these counselling sessions the first three are free; after that they are £30 per session.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the services referred to in the Question are available in the Greater London Enterprise Board

161
and also in the various metropolitan enterprise boards where they have fully technically qualified staff to deal with these matters, where the services are free, and of which many firms up and down the country have taken advantage in the last year or so?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that may well be so, in which case I should say that this was an example of duplication, and another reason to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord really serious in what he has just said? Does he find it humorous that we have a record of bankruptcies among small firms? Is he aware that it is the endeavours of the organisations listed by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington which have saved many small businessmen from going down the Tory road to bankruptcy? Is the noble Lord aware that therefore these organisations should be given more assistance? If the Government really believe in small enterprises thriving in Great Britain, why do they not stop this ridiculous business of abolishing the great authorities that are helping them so much?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should say that while bankruptcies among small firms are running at a fairly high level, so, too, are new firms starting up; in fact, they are, I think, at a record level.

The Royal Opera House: Priestley Report
3 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support the findings of the Priestley Report on The Royal Opera House Covent Garden.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Government did accept the main findings and conclusions of the Priestley scrutiny and included an additional £2.8 million in the Arts Council's grant for 1984–85, which was passed on to the Royal Opera House and has been built into the Opera House's baseline funding for 1985–86.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that welcome Answer—he is a sparkling champion of cultural activities—may I ask whether he is aware that with modern techniques for putting on film the instantaneous translation of operas as they are being sung, music is being brought to the people? Does he agree that television is to be congratulated upon this facility by which words written in English can be seen as they are sung by the artist, so bringing to the people great operas and ballets such as "Don Giovanni", "Swan Lake" and others? I hope that the Government will encourage this.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as a long-time fan of opera, I very much agree with the noble Lord. I
162
welcome the enormous interest in opera that television and video have brought, even though I recognise that this brings any arts Minister a certain amount of headache.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that Sir Claus Moser is on record as saying that at the Royal Opera House they are in despair about the grant and face draconian cuts? Will he launch an urgent inquiry to see what effect these are having on operatic standards?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am well aware of Sir Claus's despair, which I find a little operatic. In 1983–84, the Royal Opera House got a rise, so to say, of 10 per cent; in 1984–85 a rise of 7 per cent. Last year—I recognise that this poses real difficulty for Sir Claus and his board—the rise was only 2 per cent. But one cannot have a good year every year.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that if the sparkle discerned in him by my noble friend is not apparent at the Royal Opera House, it is even less apparent elsewhere in the country? Will he look again at the whole question of funding? Does he agree that the underfunding discerned by Priestley at the Royal Opera House is rife throughout the country? Will he do something to put it right generally?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have to say that I do not believe in an ever upward movement of funding for the arts. I believe in a good baseline of Government subsidy that is supplemented by an inflow of private funds. I am glad to say that this is taking place.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, with the permission of the House, whether he will consider removing value added tax from cultural and musical activities, as happens in many parts of Europe?
The Earl of Cowrie: My Lords, I do not think that any Government would contemplate that. It would be very difficult to ring fence the arts, culture or music from a general demand to be removed from a tax which, whatever one thinks of it, is needed and is very efficient to gather.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the noble Earl remind us of the fall in the grant in real terms in the current year?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not have that information. There is some fall, but that is compensated for by the fact that there have been real term rises in previous years.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some of us take a different view about the Royal Opera House and feel that the patrons of Covent Garden, in the main, could afford to pay a great deal more than they do? Is he aware that the money saved could be devoted to the provinces where incomes are lower and the need very much greater?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will perhaps be aware that one of the

163
reasons why the Opera House finds itself in some difficulties—I have every sympathy for that—is that the Arts Council has decided to divert a greater portion of its grant towards the regions, including of course opera companies in the regions.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Cox will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the higher education Green Paper. It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period. During the adjournment, the Second Readings of the Rent (Amendment) Bill and the Motor Cycle Crash-Helmets (Restriction of Liability) Bill will be taken. If your Lordships agree to the business Motion that is about to be moved by my noble friend the Leader of the House, the remaining stages of the Rent (Amendment) Bill will also be taken.

Business of the House
3.5 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Rent (Amendment) Bill through all its remaining stages this day.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of the Motion is to enable the Rent (Amendment) Bill to be taken through its Second Reading and remaining stages during the dinner break this evening. The Bill has already been passed in another place, and if your Lordships agree to take it through all stages this evening, it will receive Royal Assent on Thursday. The purpose of the Bill is to correct an anomaly arising out of a recent judicial decision. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Bill's progress should be accelerated in this way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the first of the four Bills on the Order Paper in my name. If I may, I shall speak to all four together and then move the other three formally, together with the consequential Motion in connection with the fourth. This has been a mammoth task both for the Law Commission and the draftsman. To both I offer my own gratitude and I trust also the thanks and compliments of the House.
164
The Housing Acts were last consolidated in the Session of 1957–58, in the Housing Act 1957 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958. That was the fourth consolidation in this area of the law. Since then, there have been 17 further Housing Acts, most recently the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 and the Housing Defects Acts 1984. Some idea of the number of Acts involved may be gathered from the fact that the repeal schedule for this consolidation makes repeals in some 85 Acts of Parliament, and the present Housing Bill and Housing Associations Bill take up nearly 550 pages, compared with 198 pages in the 1957–58 consolidation.
The size of the task and the fact that material was drawn from so many different Acts over such a long interval has necessitated the adoption of a radical approach. There was no alternative but to redraft the legislation in a consistent, modern style. The topics within the scope of the consolidation are, broadly speaking, those which give rise to functions of public authorities: public sector housing, housing conditions and housing subsidies, grants, loans and other financial matters.
As well as provisions of the Housing Acts strictly so called, the opportunity has been taken to incorporate so much of the Small Dwelling Acquisition Acts 1899 to 1923 as is still operative and the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936 relating to common lodging houses. Provisions relating to "landlord and tenant" and housing benefits (which are more closely related to social security legislation) have been excluded from the main consolidation.
Essentially this is a single Bill consolidation. The main Housing Bill contains by far the greater part of the provisions within the scope of the consolidation. Two subsidiary topics are, however, separately dealt with and these are contained in the Housing Associations Bill and the Landlord and Tenant Bill. The legislation relating to housing associations is a distinct sub-division of the law on this topic. The relevant provisions also extend to Scotland and are, in significant respects, not capable of being stated separately for England and Wales on the one hand and for Scotland on the other. It would be inconvenient and possibly even distasteful for the Scottish reader to have to refer to an Act of Parliament otherwise entirely English in order to discover the relevant Scottish law. Accordingly, the subject has been separately dealt with in a separate Bill which extends to the whole of Great Britain.
The reason for the separate Landlord and Tenant Bill is that it is necessary for the purposes of the arrangement of the statute book to distinguish the subject under title "Housing" from the subject under title "Landlord and Tenant". This Bill consolidates a number of provisions of the Housing Acts which fall under the latter heading, so that it would not have been appropriate to include them in the main Housing Bill. They are, however, of considerable practical importance, and it would therefore be undesirable to take the alternative course and leave them isolated in various Housing Acts otherwise entirely, or almost entirely, now to be repealed. In fact, the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Bill form a coherent sub-division of the law of landlord and tenant, consisting of

165
those provisions which relate specifically to residential accommodation.
Fourthly, and I hope finally, there is the Housing (Consequential Provisions) Bill. This deals with a number of technical matters arising from the three substantive Bills: repeals, consequential amendments, transitional (natters and savings. They are of secondary importance and more conveniently contained together in a separate Bill.
In the course of preparing the consolidation a number of anomalies and inconsistencies came to light. The Law Commission has, in accordance with its usual practice, issued a report making some 38 recommendations for minor technical amendments to enable the law to be stated in a clear and straightforward fashion. These include a number of proposals for repeal of enactments either obsolete or no longer of practical utility. Therefore, the Bills before your Lordships give effect to these but they will, of course, in due course fall to be considered by the Joint Committee if the Second Reading is passed.
Finally, the House will note the special Motion on the Order Paper relating to the last of the four Bills. This is necessary because that Bill, although a necessary part of the consolidation scheme, is not strictly a consolidation Bill. It can thus be dealt with, along with the other Bills, by the Joint Committee more conveniently. The rules of the House require that it be referred specifically. The other Bills, of course, go in the usual way and automatically to the Joint Committee without any special Motion. That is the plan we followed last November in the almost equally complicated companies' consolidation which I introduced.
As I remember, my noble friend Lord Molson reminded me in a Starred Question last February that the housing legislation has remained unconsolidated for too long. It is a body of law which is of immediate practical importance to a large number of our fellow subjects. The Bills now before the House will make a major contribution to its clarity and accessibility. I therefore commend them to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move that the first of the four Bills be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for undertaking the huge task of explaining this mammoth piece of consolidation. One wonders what will be the dimensions of the new Housing Bill. I suspect that it will add considerably to the size of the statute book. Indeed, we can see a great bundle in the Lord Chancellor's hand. One also wonders what is being done about the hoped for process of reducing the size of the statute book when we are enlarging it so signally on this occasion.
The Law Commission is undoubtedly to be congratulated on its achievement in completing this process. The next task I suppose will be to reform the law of housing and of landlord and tenant. Is not that also overdue? When can we look forward to some progress in that direction?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this consolidation and the events which have led to it raise some important issues and questions. Therefore, I should like to remind your Lordships of its immediate background, which concerns what happened as regards the Bill mentioned by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor; namely, the Housing and Building Control Act of last Session.
Part I of that Bill amended, by reference, the Housing Act 1980 in dealing with the right to buy council houses. It was never gainsaid that that amendment by reference was utterly incomprehensible. It was entirely incomprehensible to the persons who would be principally concerned; namely, council tenants and, only with great difficulty and with the use of scissors and paste would it be understandable to the local authorities who had to administer it. It led to very great indignation, not least because it was the second Session in which the same department had put forward a Bill a major part of which was incomprehensible.
When protests were made, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the most that could be offered by the Minister in charge of the Bill was that there should be a, so to speak, unofficial consolidation of the 1980 and 1984 Acts by the republication by the Statutory Publications Office of the 1980 Act, as amended by the 1984 Act. It was said that that could only be done in four months by which time, of course, it would be far too late.
As regards the consolidation which was pressed, the important consolidation had been in train for a long time and it has now come to fruition. However, no term could be put on its completion. Such was the indignation that an amendment was put down that Part I of the 1984 Act should not come into force until there had been consolidation. There was then considerable alarm and the heavy artillery in the shape of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was called up. By the time my noble and learned friend made his powerful speech there were two significant changes. In the first place, the four months could now be reduced to two, by which time it would be useful. In the second place, my noble and learned friend hoped, without giving an undertaking, that the consolidation could be completed within a year, which would bring it to this spring. The assurance of publication by the Statutory Publications Office was honoured entirely and to the minute. The consolidation is slightly later than my noble and learned friend hoped, but now we have seen its dimensions it would be most churlish to complain.
Therefore, may I make three points. First, I congratulate my noble and learned friend, the Law Commission and their draftsmen on a superlative piece of consolidation. Secondly, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that a strong-minded Minister does not immediately accept a negative or dilatory plea from a Government department. When my noble and learned friend came to intervene there was a substantial improvement.
The third point is a matter of legislative technique: the publication prior to consolidation of a Bill in its amended form by the Statutory Publications Office. That is alternative to another technique which I do not

167
think would have been suitable here; namely, the well-known Keeling Schedule whereby the original Bill is published as a schedule to the amending Bill with typographical distinctions between the old matter, the new matter and the excluded matter. As I say, I do not think that that would have been suitable in this case because the dimensions were too great. The alternative of the publication in an amended form by the Statutory Publications Office, your Lordships may think, is a valuable addition to our legislative techniques.
I have only one other thing to say, since my noble and learned friend has dealt with all these Bills together. The last Bill, the consequential provisions Bill, is not a consolidation Bill. It contains some provisions, for example on page 14, which strike me as potentially controversial although they embody existing law. I merely wanted to be assured, as your Lordships will wish to be, by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack that the fact that this is not a consolidation Bill will not throw the whole subject open to argument on its merits, but that Parliament will exercise the same restraint as it does on Law Commission amendments such as we have here, and not discuss the substance of the measure. I should be most grateful if my noble and learned friend could reassure your Lordships on that.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as one who has persistently pressed for more consolidation, especially on this branch of the law, I hope that I may briefly endorse what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. This particular piece of consolidation has been a most formidable task. The measure of it can be seen by looking at the 52 pages of derivations which we find at the end of the main, newly consolidated Housing Bill, which is in two volumes.
I am sure that it was right, and useful guidance for the future, to try to split this consolidation effort into several parts. If it had been all done in one part these two volumes would certainly have had to be three volumes and the whole thing would have been completely unmanageable. Therefore, as a guide to future consolidation, I suggest that that is a useful precedent.
May I just mention in passing, especially as it has been suggested that the law should now be reformed, is it not rather a strange reflection upon the parliamentary habits of the great British Parliament that a matter which touches the ordinary citizen in his daily life and in his home life should have to be expressed by Parliament in such enormous detail as we find in these volumes, which even then are, as has been pointed out, not the whole of the story.
I hope that in further legislation on this subject, and in any attempt to reform it, that will be borne in mind. To the extent that we can enact matters in clear general principles and try to avoid much of this detail, we shall be doing a great service to our fellow subjects.
Lord Molson: My Lords, it would indeed be ungracious on my part if I did not say a few words of
168
thanks and congratulations to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for what he has achieved in this matter. The length, complexity and difficulty of this matter have been set out by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, with that mastery of detail for which he is so well known. With him and my noble friend beside me, Lord Selkirk, we protested vigorously during the debates on the 1984 Bill that it was to a large extent only an amendment of the 1980 Act, and that really it was impossible for anyone to understand what the outcome was going to be without carefully collating those two measures. In addition to that of course there was the existing corpus of housing law.
In answer to our representations, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor undertook, as has already been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, to do his best to bring a consolidating Bill on to the Floor of this House within 12 months. I do not think that anyone, possibly not he, realised what a tremendous task this was going to be. Therefore, I should like to express I am sure the appreciation of all of us at the way in which my noble and learned friend has managed to achieve this within one year, which is what he did not promise but undertook to endeavour to do.
We are therefore now confronted with four separate Bills— 149, 150, 151 and 160. That is a measure of the magnitude of the task. The repeals alone cover seven pages in one of the schedules. I would only say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that although this does nothing to reduce the volume of the statute book it at any rate goes a long way to simplifying it for those who wish to look up the law upon the subject.
The matter has been carefully covered from the technical point of view both by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but I should like to go a little further and mention another substantial achievement, and one which my noble friend Lord Renton would be too modest to mention himself. This consolidation marks a great step forward because for almost the first time we have a statute which is lucid and intelligible in its drafting.
I often used to think that parliamentary draftsmen gloried in their own obscurity to demonstrate their ingenuity. This was criticised by my noble friend Lord Renton in a remarkable report: remarkable because of its painstaking and perspicacious analysis of the whole of this immensely complicated and difficult problem. I think that this legislation marks a turning point in the direction of the long due acceptance of many of the recommendations made by my noble friend in the Renton report. The old style consisted of long subsections without a single full stop extending perhaps to 20 lines. The main verb might be in the first line and the rest of the main sentence in the 21st line. The intervening lines would deal with exceptions, reservations and sometimes with irrelevancies.
The new style is exemplified in these Bills. In the main Bill there are 18 parts—each with a logical and sensible title which enables one to know what it is about—and within them 624 clauses clearly stating the subject. Finally, and most important of all, the subsections seldom exceed seven lines in length, and

169
all exceptions and reservations are set out separately and clearly. I think my noble friend would say that that is entirely in line with the constructive suggestions that he made in his report which has been too long neglected.
Credit for an important step in the clarification and rationalisation of the law, making it in the words of the 39 articles "understanded of the people", attaches first to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who promised this consolidation and, against great difficulties in a tight timetable, has seen it through; to my noble friend Lord Renton whose memorable report has at last been remembered; and thirdly to Parliamentary Counsel and their assistant who have departed from the antiquated tradition of ponderous complication in favour of a simpler, orderly and logical style of draftsmanship. This is greatly to the credit of all those concerned.
3.33 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to thank most sincerely all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and to reply to some of their excellent points. It is true that the statute volume for 1985 will be greatly enlarged by this legislation, if it passes its remaining stages, but the number of statutes on the statute book will be comparably reduced by virtue of this consolidation. That is a step forward because, instead of having to look in many places, the practitioner and the subject will be able to look in one place alone, namely, the 1985 statutes. The main process of the reduction of the number of statutes on the statute book is the work of the Statute Law Revision Committee whose work was begun before my first term of office, from the term of Lord Gardiner onwards. The number of statutes on the statute book has, contrary to general belief, diminished rather than increased. I sympathise with the other remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I should greatly like to see a simplification of the law, indeed, a reform of it, but we pass laws relating to landlord and tenant and housing almost every year. The number of laws which are now being consolidated indicates that.
I was grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and I accept on behalf of the draftsmen and on behalf of the Law Commission his congratulations on this stupendous piece of work. He also was good enough to add words in praise of myself. I can only say that, like Jeeves, I endeavour to give satisfaction, but I cannot claim that I have done more than give it such backing as I was asked to do with such enthusiasm as I am capable of giving. I fully share my noble and learned friend's belief in Statutes in Force as a tool for the practitioner and the user of statutes and I have always backed it from the very first. The whole sequence is now complete but the price, I am sorry to say, is enormous. On the other hand, those who are interested in particular parts of the law can buy separate parts at something less than that enormous price. I certainly hope with my noble and learned friend that the minor consequential provisions in the last of the four Bills will not be made the subject of debate unless there are controversial animadversions on some of those by the Joint Select Committee which will be considering them in detail.
170
I was also grateful for what was said by my noble friend Lord Renton whose work in this field was generously acknowledged by my noble friend Lord Molson, and I should like to be associated with what Lord Molson said. As regards the extraordinary length of English legislation, we have to recognise that our laws are, on the whole, more verbose than those of comparable democracies on the Continent. But this is primarily the fault not of our parliamentary draftsmen, that dedicated body of men, but of our technical rules of legal construction, which are often the subject of debate in legal books but which we have never yet quite been able to get round.
Our doctrine is that Parliament is supreme. Therefore, the draftsman has to think of every possible detail which can be the subject of debate in the courts, otherwise it is said that the judges are making laws. This is the difficulty which no Lord Chancellor, no judges and no draftsmen have been able to get round. But we are moving slowly but firmly, and I hope that with the general consent of the profession and Parliament, towards a more purposive construction of the statutes, which in the end should lead towards a more concise style of draftsmanship. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Molson for his constructive contribution both on this and on a previous occasion, and I am grateful for all he said.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I hope that the extravagant plaudits directed at the Housing Bill, as distinct from the "Renton Amendment Bill" which comes later, will be justified. They were extravagant. I doubt whether they will live up to the words used. I have never known extra words to simplify anything, and this consolidation means extra words.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Housing Associations Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Landlord and Tenant Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Housing (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to desire their agreement.

Higher Education: Green Paper
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the development of higher education into the 1990s which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"I wish to make a Statement about the Green Paper published today on the future development of higher education. Copies of the Green Paper are available in the Vote Office. The Green Paper covers the United Kingdom as a whole and I am therefore speaking with the agreement of my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
"The purposes of the Green Paper are to present the Government's thinking on future development of higher education, to set the scene for the next decade, and to invite the views both of those involved in higher education and of the taxpayers and ratepayers who finance so much of the cost.
"The paper has been prepared in the light of advice on future strategy from the University Grants Committee and from the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education in England, published last September. In Scotland a review of strategy and of planning and funding arrangements for higher education is being undertaken by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council. The application in Scotland of the policies addressed in the paper will be considered in the light of the council's advice, which will be available later this year.
"As well as reaffirming the view of the aims and purposes of higher education defined in the Robbins Report in 1963, the Government believe that it is vital for our higher education to contribute more effectively to the improvement of the performance of the economy. This is not because the Government place a low value on the general cultural benefits of education and research or on study of the humanities. The reason is simply that,
172
unless the country's economic performance improves, we shall be even less able than now to afford many of the things we value most—including education for pleasure and general culture and the financing of scholarship and research as an end in itself. The Green Paper therefore emphasises the need for higher education to become more responsive to changing industrial and commercial circumstances, and the importance of close links between higher education on the one hand and business, the professions and the public services on the other.
"Since 1963 successive governments have endorsed the so-called 'Robbins principle' that 'courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so'. The UGC and the NAB have advised that qualification for higher education should be interpreted broadly and that the test should not be paper qualifications but 'ability to benefit'. So long as the taxpayer continues to bear most of the cost of higher education, however, the benefit has to be sufficient to justify the cost. Subject to that, the Government accept that the criteria for entry to higher education—which will, as at present, remain under the control of institutions themselves—should place more emphasis on intellectual competence, motivation and maturity, and less on formal qualifications. These criteria should be applied as rigorously to those with paper qualifications as to those without. The Government do not expect this change of emphasis significantly to affect the numbers of students for whom higher education should be provided. A consultative paper on student support arrangements will be published shortly, as part of the review of such arrangements which I announced on 5th December last.
"As with their policies for schools, in higher education too the Government are committed to raising standards and the pursuit of value for money. In both these areas important reports have recently been published, and are under active consideration.
"The report of the Committee of Inquiry into Academic Validation in Public Sector Higher Education, chaired by Sir Norman Lindop and published in April, deals with the approval, and monitoring of standards, of degree level courses in polytechnics and colleges. It recommends substantial changes in the arrangements of universities which validate public sector courses and of the Council for National Academic Awards. One proposal is that some institutions in the public sector should in future take full responsibility for their own academic standards and award their own degrees. The Government have invited comments on the report and will consider these before coming to decisions.
"The report of a Steering Committee chaired by Sir Alex Jarratt, based on efficiency studies undertaken in six universities, has proposed significant changes in universities' planning and management structures. The present arrangements were developed in a period of increasing resources. Now that resources are no longer expanding,

173
changes are needed if universities are to be able to spend to best advantage the public funding likely to be available. The Jarratt Report will also be relevant to the rest of higher education where other efficiency studies are in hand.
"In research, the Government wish to ensure that the available resources are used to the greatest possible advantage, which requires more selectivity and planning. The University Grants Committee is developing and promoting new selective allocation and planning arrangements. It is also important that commerce, industry and the public services should take full advantage of what higher education has to offer through research, technology transfer, business start-up facilities and consultancy services. The Green Paper stresses the need for higher education to pay more attention to the development of such services.
"The Green Paper recognises that continuing education should be a growth area in higher education, whether for vocational or non-vocational purposes. The Government and local authorities have an important role in stimulating such provision and the Government contribute directly to the development of in-career vocational education through the Professional, Industrial and Commercial Updating Programme. But the cost should not fall principally on the tax- and ratepayer. Employers are urged to recognise more fully their need, in their own interests, to encourage and to pay for the development and updating of their staff, while adults in work can be expected to contribute substantially to the cost of courses that they take for career advancement or for personal satisfaction.
"The Jarratt Report recommends a review of the role, structure and staffing of the University Grants Committee. The Government have accepted this recommendation, and I shall announce the terms of reference and form of the review as soon as possible.
"The Government's Expenditure Plans published last January indicate the sums that the Government plan to make available for higher education up to the end of the present planning period. Beyond this there are the same difficulties about providing projections of future funding for higher education as there are for other public expenditure programmes. The Government accept that they must give the best indications of longer-term policies for higher education that they can, but planning also requires institutions to manage their commitments and the funds available to them so as to be able to pursue their objectives effectively in circumstances of change and uncertainty. Present projections of student demand suggest that there will be a substantial fall in student numbers in the 1990s and planning for the changes that will be necessary must begin shortly.
"The Government will review their policies for higher education in the light of the responses to the Green Paper, and hope to be able to make a further statement of intentions in the course of 1986."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement,
174
which was extremely long but did not really have in it anything very exciting or new to make up for its length. In fact, we find the Statement disappointing, unsatisfying and unsatisfactory. It tells us very little. It may be that the Green Paper, when there is time to read it, will tell us a little more, but the picture we get is depressing. It is a picture of a contracting system of higher education, with the possibility of expansion only if industry or the individual can pay for it. Many of us had hoped that the decline in the number in the 18-plus age group in the 1990s would provide the opportunity for the greater involvement of women, mature students and those who had missed out on a first chance to be involved in higher education. But the Statement, while paying lip service to continuing education and saying that it should be a growth area, also says (and I quote):
"But the cost should not fall principally on the tax- and ratepayer. Employers are urged to recognise more fully their need, in their own interests, to encourage and to pay for the development and updating of their staff, while adults in work can be expected to contribute substantially to the cost of courses that they take for career advancement or for personal satisfaction".
There is nothing about those who are out of work and who might perhaps need the stimulus of further and higher education.
Moreover, all this is at a time when every report we get from industry or from Select Committees of this House and elsewhere urges a great interest in and need for graduates with skills in science and technology for the nation's good. Instead, we know from the UGC letter to the heads of universities sent out last week that that committee has decided (and I quote):
"on a working hypothesis of an average annual decline in the recurrent grant for each institution of 2 per cent. in real terms".
An increase in the number of places in science and technology depends on the production of extra resources, as the UGC says; yet the Government are expecting them to be supplied within existing resources. This is totally unreal if the Government are seriously encouraging the international competitiveness of industry.
I have one comment on the Jarratt Report. That report did make some helpful and sensible suggestions, but it did not indicate that any very substantial savings could be made, as the UGC said in its letter last week. Yet the Government seem to be relying on Jarratt to provide the additional funding, which really is the Government's business if they want industry to be revitalised. We agree with the Jarratt recommendation that there should be a review of the role, structure and staffing of the UGC. If it is to cope with the task which it set itself in its letter to the universities last week, it certainly will need very substantial extra manpower.
We are glad that the Government are re-affirming the view of the aims and purpose of higher education defined in the Robbins Report, and we welcome the Government's acceptance of the recommmendation of the UGC and the national advisory body that ability to benefit should be a qualification for entry to higher education. We welcome the Government's acceptance that the criteria for entry into higher education should place more emphasis on intellectual competence, motivation and maturity, and less on formal qualifications. These criteria, it says, should be applied as rigorously to those with paper qualifications as to

175
those without. I hope that perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to give a little clarification about that.
Finally, we do not understand why this Green Paper, expected about six months ago, has been delayed all this time. We were told it was because of the need to discuss student support systems further, but there is nothing on student support here: just the promise of a consultative paper on the subject later. May I ask when we might expect that?
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for having repeated this Statement—not, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has already said, that it tells us very much. We are happy to endorse the emphasis placed in the Green Paper on the need for higher education to become more responsive to changing industrial and commercial circumstances and on the importance of close links between higher education and business.
The Government appear to think that the Robbins principle should be interpreted broadly to mean that the test for entry into higher education should be the ability to benefit from it, provided that the benefit is sufficient to justify the cost. The question I should like to ask is: what cost? More precisely, have the Government closed their minds altogether to the advice given earlier by the University Grants Committee that universities should receive level funding, or is any increase in the grant for the rest of this decade to be below the rate of inflation?
The Statement refers to changes recommended in the Jarratt Report on universities' planning and management structure, For my part, I welcome this, and indeed I know from my own experience that, to that end, committee structures are already being examined in universities. The UGC are said in the Statement to be developing and promoting new selective allocation and planning arrangements for available resources. Again I have to ask: what does this mean? Are the Government willing to give due consideration, at any rate, to the advice of your Lordships' Committee on education and training for new technologies, that in bringing about the desired shift from the arts to science and engineering in the number of higher education places to be made available because science and technology places cost more, this will require new resources as well as the reallocation of existing ones?
Finally, the Green Paper urges employers to recognise more fully their need for continuing education and indeed to help to pay for it. May I ask whether the Government, for their part, have given any thought to the possibility of offering some form of tax remission to those employers who demonstrate their willingness to contribute to the national interest in this way?
3.57 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for their comments and constructive contributions in response to this Statement. The noble Baroness said that she was very disappointed that it
176
seemed to be such a negative Statement, with very little in the way of positive policy proposals or encouragement. May I just emphasise that I think the Green Paper is positive in many respects? It is important to remember that the Government are currently investing some £3·8 billion in higher education and research, that there are now 65,000 more students in higher education than there were in 1979 and that the age participation index has increased over those years.
However, as was made clear, the Government's policies, as set out in the Green Paper, are designed to make sure that more effective use is made of the inevitably limited resources available for higher education. In doing so, the Government are keen to ensure that standards and quality are maintained and, where possible, enhanced and that higher education is better managed, more flexible and more attuned to the needs of industry and commerce. The Green Paper sets out to establish the framework in which sensible planning for the challenges ahead can proceed and in which those objectives can be maintained.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of students who are unemployed. The Green Paper does not ignore the needs of students who are out of work. For example, in paragraph 4.4 there is particular reference to students seeking new or strengthened knowledge and skills who themselves might he unemployed. The Statement makes a point of saying that the unemployed deserve and receive special attention. Fees are often waived or abated. The Open University, for example, has funds to assist enrolment by the unemployed and some other groups and the MSC also offers support to many other students under adult training schemes.
The noble Baroness also asked about the growth or otherwise of the numbers of students in science and engineering. I should like to point out that there has been a significant growth of home students on full-time courses in science and engineering in recent years from 125,200 students in universities to 132,300 now, and in the public sector there has been an enormous growth from 54,200 in 1979–80 to 84,000 now, Projections for the future anticipate a growth in those subject areas.
On the question of the alternative interpretation—if one may so call it—of the Robbins principle with regard to the right of entry to higher education, we are delighted that the noble Baroness agrees that there is a case for broadening the interpretation of "qualifications" for higher education beyond formal qualifications, as has been the case, of a minimum of two advance levels, and that the new interpretation rightly includes other aspects, such as ability to benefit, motivation and maturity. I think everyone would agree that that would be very beneficial in encouraging students into higher education who will be both motivated to benefit from it and able to make maximum use of the opportunities that it provides. Perhaps if there remain any other questions which the noble Baroness raised, I may deal with them later.
I now wish to move to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. He asked whether or not the Robbins principle would allow interpretation of admissions policy commensurate with funding and with the interpretation of cost. As I have already

177
indicated, the Government are committed, through their advance planning on the public expenditure programme on higher education, to maintain the level of funding for the proposed limits with regard to the numbers of students who are currently receiving higher education, and are committed to allowing for demand as worked out in the principle entitled Variant Y of Report on Education 100 dealing with gauging expected student demand.
So far as the question of selectivity is concerned, with regard to the university sector the UGC has always had to be selective. It is of course up to the UGC itself to decide the criteria on which it ascertains its priorities for selectivity in line with the existing constraints that are conditioning the resources available.
I think that there was some concern about the balance between science and engineering and other subjects and about whether the Robbins principle can ensure that there is adequate provision for students of arts and humanities as well as of science. The Green Paper is adamant that the Government value the study of humanities and arts as well as of the sciences, though they recognise that with a growth in science and engineering places competition for arts places will inevitably be a little more difficult. But there is and always has been in recent years sufficient places in higher education for all students who have applied. If there is to be any concern in the future about non-availability of places for students qualified and wishing to enter higher education, I would point out that the Government have commissioned a survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to monitor the situation with regard to matching demand and supply and ascertaining whether or not there will be students who might be qualified according to the Robbins principle in its reformulated version, and whether there will be places available for those students who wish to embark on courses in higher education.
With regard to the final question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on tax incentives, I am afraid that I cannot comment on it. It is not dealt with specifically in the Green Paper. But I wish to remind your Lordships that this is a consultative document, and clearly those people who might feel that they could make a helpful contribution would be in a position to make their views known.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should not like it to be thought that the very grudging response of the noble Baroness, Lady David, represents the totality of reactions to this interesting and important Statement. On the contrary, I think the Statement gives us some reasonable hope that the long decline in the capacity of this country adequately to organise and finance higher education may be coming to an end. It is, after all, an extraordinary anomaly that we go along with the University Grants Committee system set up on 1919 in a totally different world.
The question I should like to ask the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in consequence is this. Will the committee of inquiry, which I regard as the pillar of the whole new system, be entitled to look not merely at the staffing and membership of the University Grants Committee, but also at its general remit? Will
178
it be able to look at other and more complex forms of finance? In particular, will it have the facilities to profit by the experience of other countries, and most notably of the United States of America?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Beloff for his welcome of the Green Paper and the very helpful comments he has made. So far as the terms of reference of the UGC inquiry are concerned, they are still under review. But it will certainly be an external inquiry: it will have an external chairman; and it will not be an elected representative body. However, its terms of reference, as I understand it, are still very much to be determined.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I have been listening to the same Statement. I listened to every word of the Statement and I could not discern a single strand of new thinking anywhere in the replies of the noble Baroness. The one thing that emerges loud and clear from the whole Statement is that there will be a considerable contraction of higher education by the middle 1990s. For a country which must sell its goods and services overseas in the face of increasingly sophisticated competition from Japan, America, West Germany and other countries this will be sheer idiocy. It amounts almost to national suicide. It is the most idiotic thing that this idiotic Government have done in their term of office.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may put the noble Lord right. There is not a major contraction anticipated which is out of line with, for example, falling student numbers. When one considers the projected planning for the expenditure on higher education until the 1990s, one sees that there is also a projected fall, demographically determined through the falling birth rate, of students going through. I should like to emphasise that the demand for full-time courses is likely to stay fairly constant, and will then fall by about 14 per cent, but provision for higher education for students is intended to meet such demand as will take place. There is also intended, and provided for, other categories of students, such as part-time students and mature students of whom full account is taken, and they often receive very real benefit from involvement in higher education.
As for comparisons with other countries, international comparisons always present a very great difficulty. However, from the point of view of our age participation rate—and the proportions of our people on a cohort basis going into education—I should like to point out to the noble Lord that the United Kingdom compares favourably with many other countries in Western Europe in particular. We have entrants rates which compare very favourably with, for example, West Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, though Japan and the United States have higher rates. But we hope that the encouragement of more students into science and engineering courses will go some way towards meeting the need of the economy for more graduates and for technologically qualified personnel.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one of the Ministers departmentally responsible 22 years ago for

179
acceptance of the Robbins Report, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the fact that the Government are now having a look at the structure which resulted from that ambitious and enterprising report. Is my noble friend aware that that report was accepted, despite its very heavy financial implications, against the background of very different economic circumstances from today and against the background of a steadily expanding economy? To ask her a specific question arising from that, is it the fact, as has been suggested in certain elements of the press, that the Government are contemplating the closure of certain university departments which are thought to duplicate the work of other and more efficient ones at other universities?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank my noble friend for his encouraging remarks with regard to the implementation of the Robbins principle, in spite of the financial situation. To try to answer the question with regard to potential closure, the situation at the moment is that the Government have asked the various bodies concerned with the university sector and the public sector to consider the position with regard to rationalisation and the more effective use of resources. The UGC will be undertaking such a study so far as the universities are concerned; the National Advisory Board will be undertaking such a study with regard to the public sector. At the moment there is no question whatever in the Government's mind of any candidates for closure as such, but should that be deemed necessary in due course, legislation may be required. But that is not at the moment in the thinking of the Government and it would be wrong to pre-empt the findings and the deliberations of those bodies.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, after listening to the Statement which the Minister has made, may I say that this is a very sad day indeed for higher education in this country? Many of us who have worked so hard feel very sad after listening to that Statement. The question that I should like to put to the noble Baroness is: does this confirm something that many of us have been thinking for some time—that the UGC is now an instrument of Government rather than an independent body?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I see no grounds whatever for the assumption underlying the noble Lord's question. The UGC is the determining body with regard to the allocation of the university funds that are made available to it. It has been suggested in the Jarratt Report that there might be a review of the UGC, and the Government are considering that review. But at the moment the UGC functions as it always has done. I am sad that the noble Lord feels so dismayed, because the record in regard to the increase in provision for higher education over recent years has been highly commendable and, I should have thought, cause for a certain amount of satisfaction. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the total number of students in higher education, to whom we all feel a deep commitment, has increased from 454,000 in 1979–80 to 519,500 in 1983–84, and that there is a projected increase beyond that up to 1989–90. So I
180
think that there are no grounds for the dismay which the noble Lord expressed.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness—and I do so as one who was for many years the treasurer of a university—whether the universities are to get more financial help from the Government in future, rather than less, taking into account the increased cost of living?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the future expenditure plans, as they are at present outlined, are for a modest increase in cash terms. But, of course, that increase must be seen in the light of other general factors, such as inflation, and it is impossible to determine exactly what will be the relationship between the actual increase and the net increase.
Lord Leatherland: Then, my Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is a fact that universities will get less financial help from the Government in future than they have done in the past?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, it is impossible to ascertain in a hypothetical way the relationship in the future between an increase in actual terms and an increase in real terms, because it is impossible to make allowance in the future for other factors such as inflation. But perhaps I may point out that the Government are making some specific grants in addition to current levels of expenditure to the universities, and particularly on the research side, to encourage research which is of such importance for our performance in the whole area of industry and technology.
For example, the Government are making available specific grants for universities to update their equipment. There is to be a fund of £4 million for 1985–86 and £7 million for each of the financial years 1986–87 to universities to help them, as I said, to bring their equipment up to first-class standards. There are various other initiatives which have been made available to encourage the growth of students and the opportunities for them, particularly in these areas of science, technology and engineering. So there is new money going in over and above the general level of expenditure.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Baroness White.
Lord Leatherland: That is right. Protect her.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, in spite of the slight ameliorations which she has touched on, the universities have been told that they are to expect indefinitely a 2 per cent. reduction in their grant? Does she also agree that if they have to sustain more or less present student numbers by adding other categories to the people in the 18 year-old entry group, they cannot do this adequately and also sustain the higher cost courses which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned, if there is the switch to technology and scientific work for which the noble Baroness takes credit? The two things simply do not match. It is extremely depressing to feel that, unless

181
one qualifies for some of these selective research grants, one has very little hope of being able to make progress in the near future.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should like to point out that the Green Paper is concerned with higher education as a whole and not just with the university sector. It is very important that one considers the totality of higher education, and the Government's present expenditure plans—if I may emphasise this point—should provide sufficient resources for higher education for the current planning period to allow demand to be met at the level which is currently projected for that time.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept from me that the hope of higher education for their children remains possibly the main hope of many parents throughout this country? It is the one hope that encourages them to believe that their children can rise above the difficulties of the shrinking economic face of Britain and the difficulties that this nation has to face. Will the noble Baroness, in that case, reassure this House now—because the divisions that have been opened by this Statement cut across party lines; the reaction to them is, of course, predictable—that we can have a debate on this subject? The frustrations of asking questions, trying to observe that we do not tread across the protocol, are so great that we really need a debate. I ask that question as a classroom teacher of 32 years' service.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord opposite—I am sure we all do—that access to higher education is of immense importance. The Government are committed to ensuring that there should be places available for pupils and students who are qualified in terms of formal qualifications, and/or in terms of the other criteria which have been elaborated in the Green Paper. The policy is such that there is a commitment to ensuring that courses of higher education should be available to all those who can benefit from them, in either a university or the public sector. As regards the question of a debate, the noble Lord is well aware of the normal channels through which to proceed should such a debate be requested.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I accept—
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, what is the maximum rate of inflation which is consistent with the universities not getting a smaller allocation in real terms in the future than they are getting now? I ask that question because at one point the noble Baroness said that whether there is a real expansion, and how much, will depend on future inflation.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that, of course, everyone recognises that the development of higher education is taking place in the context of financial constraint, and I have never sought to indicate anything other than that. But higher education is, I think, expected to respond to that positively in terms of increasing efficiency and cost-effectiveness. One of the ways in which that has been accomplished, and may continue to be enhanced, is
182
through a change in staff-student ratios in a way which would not diminish the quality of teaching but might bring about certain economies. Staff-student ratios have been altered slightly in both the university sector and the public sector, but in ways which I think are still very generous compared with other international ratings of other comparable countries.
Lord Parry: My Lords, if the House will allow me to return—
Noble Lords: Lord Annan!
Lord Annan: My Lords, may a Cross-Bencher be allowed to intervene? Is the thrust of the Government's intentions in this Green Paper to maintain numbers in higher education and even possibly to increase them despite demographic trends, and at the same time to try to lower the cost of institutions in higher education? Does the noble Baroness agree that one of the mistakes possibly in the Robbins expansion was that the institutions which were created were too high in their costs? If we want to keep numbers up in higher education we have to reduce the cost of the institutions.
Perhaps I may ask a further question about the humanities. I understood the noble Baroness to say that there must be some attenuation in the cost and in the numbers of those reading humanities. Will the Government go back to the Robbins Report and remember Lord Robbins' plea that there should be fewer single subject honours degrees not merely in universities of course but also in other institutions such as the polytechnics? If we are to have young people well trained for industry and business, do they not need some of the skills in the humanities such as the ability to write persuasive English? Could there not be more joint courses which bring such skills into courses designed primarily for technology and science?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for his contribution. There is an intention that there should be an increase in participation commensurate to some extent with the demographic changes which will take place over the next 15 years or so. There is very much a commitment to greater cost-effectiveness and to a certain amount of rationalisation in higher education in both sectors, the university sector and the public sector, perhaps with some of that being brought about by a greater concentration of research in those universities which have a record of excellence in that subject and perhaps by a removal of some of the research which is spread rather thinly across other institutions.
In regard to the noble Lord's concern about arts and the humanities, perhaps I may reassure him that the Green Paper has a very strong commitment to this matter and emphasises that the Government are convinced of the importance of providing adequately for the arts. It also refers to the study of humanities and non-vocational social studies for the sake of scholarship and to give students with true potential to benefit from such study the opportunity to do so and to acquire the associated intellectual skills. There is some discussion here of the possibilities of developing different kinds of courses—degree courses and other

183
kinds—which would allow for that greater flexibility of subject mix which I think the noble Lord prefers.
Perhaps I may make a final point in this respect. It is hoped that some of the recommendations developed in the recent White Paper entitled, Better Schools, which will enable pupils moving on to university to have a rather more broadly based education with which to embark upon their higher education, may also facilitate that greater flexibility of study in higher education.

Local Government Bill
4.24 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. — (Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 51 [Compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments]:
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 136B:
Page 35, line 9, after ("1972") insert ("such regulations to be made by the Secretary of State and to provide for compensation giving benefits broadly comparable to, or greater than, those available prior to 2nd March 1984 to employees in any similar local authority affected by this Act").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we return to the various amendments which seek to provide greater protection for staff than is now given explicitly in this Bill. I say "explicitly" and underline "explicitly" because very late last night, in response to an amendment similar to mine, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, gave us a very reassuring reply; although the noble Earl will know that since the hour was so very late we have not had an opportunity to study the Hansard report which is not yet available, so we cannot know precisely how reassuring that reply was. But it seemed to me that the Government were showing a willingness to make explicit in the Bill certain things which perhaps they intended to do, anyway.
This amendment is proposed as a means of equalising the schemes for compensation payments to staff who are made redundant. As the noble Earl and indeed the Committee well know, this Bill would limit compensation payments to those payable under regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Superannuation Act 1972 except that it allows any payments to which an employee is contractually entitled under any scheme introduced before 2nd March 1984. It is that particular provision which has caused great concern among staff in the relevant authorities.
Prior to 2nd March 1984, three, I think, of the seven authorities to be abolished introduced enhanced schemes for compensating staff made redundant in
184
anticipation of abolition. On that date the Secretary of State announced that no further such schemes would be permitted. This clause as it now is reflects that statement. The staff in the authorities who did not have a scheme agreed are thus excluded even though in some cases schemes were drafted and were subsequently adopted.
I should like to make it clear that I fully accept that the Government could not possibly have allowed authorities to enter into binding contractual obligations without any restraint whatsoever. I hope the noble Earl will recognise that I accept that. But I was saying to your Lordships' Committee that we have now passed that stage. The Government are now apparently happy with those agreements which were made prior to 2nd March, but this has of course left others in other authorities in a very different situation indeed.
This amendment has three main objectives: first, to provide equality of treatment for staff in all the affected authorities. At the moment, they do not all have equality of treatment. It would appear that some staff in some authorities are perhaps treated more equally than others. Certainly there is no genuine equality across the board. Secondly, it aims to encourage staff to stay with the authorities until abolition to ensure the maintenance of services. That really is a serious problem and the loss of some of the staff at the moment is possibly having a serious effect already and indeed has other potential effects for the future. Anything which we could do to halt that drain of very valuable staff should now be done and this measure could perhaps assist in halting that drain.
Thirdly and finally, this amendment aims to ensure that compensation payments are at reasonable levels. If those levels which were agreed before 2nd March 1984 are accepted now as reasonable—presumably the Government do accept them as reasonable, because they allow them in the Bill as it now is—it necessarily follows that those arrived at subsequently on less favourable terms are unreasonable. It seems to me that some effort should be made to equalise these things, and I very much hope that when the Minister replies we will hear that some efforts are being made. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May we have some help? Can we speak only to Amendment No. 136B or is it in order to speak to other amendments?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My information is that we are going to take Amendment No. 136B and my amendment, Amendment No. 136BA, together, because they deal with the same problem although they are worded differently. I rise to move my amendment which is, as I said, very similar to the amendment. moved by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
Amendment No. 136BA: Page 35, line 15, leave out ("2nd March 1984") and insert ("the passing of this Act").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): The noble Lord cannot move his amendment now. He can debate it but it has to be moved later.
Lord Dean of Beswick: We can debate this subject as guided by the noble Lord in the Chair. With many other noble Lords I have sat for a great number of days on the Committee stage of this Bill. We discussed various wide-ranging subjects which have had plenty of time on the Floor of the Committee with, on odd occasions, setbacks for the Government. These wide-ranging debates have covered such subjects as refuse disposal, road plans, and so on. However, this amendment is dealing with the most valuable commodity that we are handling in the present circumstances. Probably most of your Lordships are familiar with the figures I am about to give, but I have to tell noble Lords that we are talking about 51,000 people employed in the GLC and the six metropolitan counties. But it does not end there, because dependent on those 51,000 people are a number of other people, such as the families, who are sustained by the fact that these people are in regular, constant and reasonable work.
It seems odd to me that we have had to get this far in our procedures before we have been able to talk on this subject. I think that the Minister, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, last night, briefly referred to the fact that there has been little discussion, if any, with the full-time officers of the trade unions involved. I believe I am correct in saying that that was the message he conveyed. I do not want to go into the reasons for that but I regret it, because it may well be that had that process taken place some of the debates that we are now having could have been avoided. I have said before in this Chamber, and will say it again and will always say, that the best people for resolving and agreeing to terms of employment and contracts of employment are the people involved; that is, the employers and the employees, which in this case would be the successor authorities.
It is a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, that there are three counties that have already put these schemes into being. I have made inquiries and understand that there was no local political friction regarding them. The three counties concerned are West Yorkshire, with over 7,000 employees; Merseyside with over 5,000 employees and Greater Manchester with over 7,000 employees. These schemes were brought in with the general support of the councils concerned. As I understand it, there was no visible opposition from the Conservative Oppositions in those areas.
I think that my amendment is certainly more easily understandable than the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I do not want to delay the Committee on this issue because it is so straightforward that the Minister may want to reply fairly quickly. The three metropolitan counties who have their proposals literally through the sausage machine and have them accepted should obviously stay as they are. I can understand the guarded stance taken by the Minister in putting an embargo or moratorium on the other three metropolitan counties doing the same, and then on the GLC. However, it is alien to all members of the Committee that we should have two sets of circumstances applying to the people involved in the same jobs and to their transfer.
I have to tell noble Lords, as one who was involved very heavily during the previous local government
186
reorganisation as the then leader of Manchester, that while many of the people who went into these jobs were senior officers (obviously they opted to do so because the wage or salary structures were made so generous by the commission which was, I believe, chaired by the late Lord Greenwood) along with them had to go many other people: literally hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of employees, very often in the manual grades, because there was nowhere else to go. It was Hobson's choice.
It is a little unfair—and I know the Minister to be a fair man although we differ on occasions—that 10 years after the Government should say to these people "We have had a 10-year experiment but it has failed". As a result they will be the only sufferers. Redundancies will take place. Figures have been mentioned but no one really knows the full effect. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made the point that these three metropolitan counties have already passed their schemes, so it would be just a question of the date being altered, as proposed in my amendment, to allow the employees to partake of the terms already agreed by the other three authorities.
I conclude by saying that the schemes are not over generous. They are not so generous as a code that was adopted some years ago—I understand it was the Crombie code—when a change took place which was in most ways considerably in excess of this one. I said I did not want to detain the Committee for long. This is a straightforward issue and on that basis I ask the Committee to support my amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I want to put one question for answer by my noble friend when he replies, as I hope he will be doing shortly. The tone of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was moderate and reasonable, as it so often is, and pitched in a way that the Committee likes. However, he touched on the point that I should like my noble friend to deal with. I refer to the matter of discussions with the staff concerned. The noble Lord said that there had been very little discussion with the full-time officers of the unions concerned. I ask my noble friend to tell us whether the unions have, in fact, been ready to go into discussions, or whether the reports which we have seen in the press that under, no doubt, inspiration of a political character they have been disinclined so to do.
At the same time I ask my noble friend whether, particularly in the case of the GLC as reported in the press, the staff concerned will not enter into discussions with the successor authorities and regard themselves as inhibited from so doing. A good deal has been said about this. It is rather disturbing and I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity of dealing with the issue when he replies to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: I wish to express my concern for the staff of the GLC and the way they are to be treated in this giant upheaval. The greatest asset that any organisation has is its staff and it is very important that they should be fairly treated. It is not their fault, speaking of the GLC in particular, that they have irresponsible masters who appear to have prevented them from opening these discussions to which the noble Lord referred.

187
The compensation terms and staff transfer arrangements for the GLC are, I believe, unsatisfactory compared with previous reorganisations. This situation has been made worse because the administrative task of dispersing thousands of staff to the successor bodies cannot be achieved, even taking the most optimistic view, within the limited timetable proposed by the Government. To give an example, the transfer of the GLC housing related staff alone to the borough of Tower Hamlets, with effect from 1st July 1985, required two years' preparation; and this was for a discreet function moving only to one borough.
How then can this massive transfer be made in the short time before 1st April 1986? These impediments, coupled with the fact that the terms of the compensation are less favourable than those payable in the statutory reorganisations ever since 1948—during which time I believe they have been applied on some 20 occasions—are unlikely, to say the least, to encourage staff to co-operate unless the terms are improved. It is clear that in the preparatory period before 1st April 1986 the success of the abolition proposals of the Government will be heavily dependent on staff co-operation. Staff who may suffer loss of employment or other detriment will not be motivated to co-operate if they consider that they are being treated unfairly compared with what happened in the previous reorganisations. Indeed, it is ironic that the more favourable terms are to be applied to the GLC staff transferring to the borough of Tower Hamlets with the GLC housing stock in July 1985.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he feels that services can be protected if, unlike what happened in previous reorganisations, staff are not transferred with the work they are doing; also, why, unlike under previous reorganisations, the Secretary of State has not obliged the exporting authorities to draw up staff transfer schemes; and, finally, why, unlike under previous reorganisations, employees and individuals are being denied the basic rights of consultation and appeal. Those are my fears and I hope that reassurance can be given on those points.
The Earl of Gowrie: Before my noble friend sits down, may I say that he presents me with a slight quandary? The very questions that he has asked I dealt with in considerable detail, and I think offered reassurances on, on an amendment last night. I do not know whether it would try the patience of your Lordships' Committee if I simply repeated what I said. May I therefore suggest that my noble friend, not in respect of his remarks about the amendment generally but in respect of his last remarks about this reorganisation compared with previous ones, should read in Hansard tomorrow what I said last night, and if he is not happy, he can of course then come back on Report?
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: I should be very happy to do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Of course all noble Lords share the concern for the staff of the GLC and indeed considerable concern about the problems that have arisen on trades union negotiation. But, dealing
188
with the reasoning behind the speech of my noble friend Lord Plummer, surely that essence of reasoning must support elasticity and a voluntary scheme which is wholly different from mandatory legislation and the principle of imposing a fetter on the way in which the boroughs are to function after abolition. We come back over and over again to the question, in different manifestations, as to whether we are to fetter the discretion of the boroughs after abolition.
There it is. Whatever else they do these amendments seek to pre-empt the content of subordinate legislation by introducing mandatory provisions. They are mandatory provisions which are to require that compensation shall be comparable to or greater than that which would have obtained under the terms of the dismissal provisions in contracts of employment, whether in writing, or in this case with these employees very often by custom, on the basis of—and here we go (and I think that it is fairly complicated) to Clause 51(2) —
"Compensation in respect of any such loss or diminution".
That arises irrespective of whether on abolition the new engagement is taken up outside or within local government service or whether no new engagement is taken up at all either because no such engagement is offered or because there is no wish to take up the offer.
4.45 p.m.
It is entirely right that the compensation should be related to that which was available prior to 2nd March 1984 by virtue of entitlement under contractual rights. The 2nd March was the date when the Government announced their intentions. Although it is common ground, I think, that certain salaries of those in local government service have been grossly excessive, the right to that remuneration and compensation should not be affected by that; hence the date. Indeed, the Commission of Human Rights, or if it did not, the court, would take the view that in any event such rights could not be removed without compensation, irrespective of whether it was alleged that they were to some extent abuses of the rating system.
But the further amendment, Amendment No. 136BC, if it is in order to speak to it—I think that it has been spoken to—binds successor councils on re-engagement—
Lord Winstanley: No.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It has not. I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Then I would merely have submitted on the single amendment, Amendment No. 136B—I understood that the other one had been spoken to, but I am wrong about that—
Lord Winstanley: It was Amendment No. 136BA which was spoken to together with Amendment No. 136B. They are on virtually the same point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for putting me right. Amendment No. 136BA really cannot be acceptable. If it were carried, it would lead to a further abuse of the rating system to fund compensation through the residuary body on the basis of salaries which have been even further inflated, and consciously inflated, since the date of the

189
announcement. In my submission, that cannot be right on any showing.
For those reasons—and I hope that I have been sufficiently brief—it would, I should have thought, be wholly wrong to put persons in local government employment in some special legal condition beyond such as is warranted by their terms and conditions of service either under the common law on termination of contract or by statute on termination for redundancy. There your Lordships' Committee will find the cross-reference to Clause 57(3) in the Bill which deals with the entitlement to damages at common law in the case of no continuation of employment, in addition of course to the redundancy payment. As your Lordships appreciated, if there is a continuation of local government service, there is no redundancy in any event.
Lord Rochester: Briefly, may I say that it will not surprise the Committee to learn that I find myself much more in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, had to say than with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has just said. If I may, I should like briefly to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Winstanley. I am equally happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. In my view, broadly they both seek to achieve the same purpose.
The principle is quite straightforward. Where redundancies have to be enforced, surely it is inequitable that compensation for loss of office payable to people currently employed by certain metropolitan county councils should be greater than that available to people employed in other such councils simply because in some cases more favourable severance schemes were adopted just before the date of 2nd March 1984, which was arbitrarily, if I may say so, determined by the Government as the cut-off point for the introduction of such schemes.
As I see it, both these amendments seek, in somewhat different ways, to give equality of treatment to people losing their jobs in consequence of reorganisation. The principle involved seems unexceptionable. I hope very much that the noble Earl, when he replies in a moment, will resist the blandishments of his noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and respond in a positive way to at least one or other of these amendments.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I shall be equally brief. I should like to support both the amendments which have really the same end product, if one can so describe it. One has to take into consideration what was said by the noble Lord who has just spoken. Because of the way they were organising their annual review, three metropolitan counties were able to bring forward their severance schemes before 2nd March. At the moment, I am not discussing the GLC. The other three metropolitan counties were not so far advanced. However, I understand that the West Midlands were placing theirs before their financial resources committee at the beginning of July and it was a case of putting their suggestions through all the voluntary bodies, all the various committees.
190
The amendment relates to severance schemes. One knows that it was the Government's proposal that abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC was to secure cash economies. Those cash economies arise from cutting the numbers of staff employed in what they call the two-tier authorities. I think it would be most unfortunate if one half of the metropolitan counties was dealt with in one way on severance schemes and the other half dealt with in a lesser way. I feel sure that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will not want to be as unfair as that. Therefore, I should like to feel that when the noble Earl replies, if he does not accept the amendment, he will say that he will look very seriously at the implications that could arise in relation to the metroplitan counties.
The Earl of Gowrie: If I may, I, too, will speak to this amendment and to Amendment No. 136BA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. When the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, moved this amendment he was kind enough to say that at a very late hour last night I had provided some reassurance. I can assure the noble Lord and the Committee, or anyone who was not here at about midnight last night, that this was not a mere matter of a spring midnight but that I meant it and that I hope that it will be looked at carefully when the Official Report is published tomorrow.
Without delaying the Committee by repeating myself, the point I tried to put across was really threefold. It was, first, that this exercise in the abolition of the upper tier of local government is not an exercise about putting those who work in that tier out of work. In the long term it is an exercise which, among other things, is designed to save posts. However, most of the redundancies that have been mentioned have been the subject of very considerable confusion, that is to say, the number of 7,100 posts, which will in the end be saved, has been confused with 7,100 jobs to go, and that is a very different matter indeed.
The other important point is that the vast majority of people who are affected by this exercise are liable to be transferred to the successor bodies. Those left to seek recruitment will be a relatively small proportion of total staff, about 30 per cent., supporting councils which will no longer exist. Most genuinely operational staff engaged on functions can expect to be reemployed by successor authorities. Our insistence is simply that it will be for the successor authorities to recruit them.
I also talked about our desire for a voluntary early retirement scheme of the kind which goes equitably across this whole economy, particularly in the public sector. I mentioned the fact that, since the previous reorganisations, a new body—albeit amended by this Government but nevertheless a substantial body—of employment protection law had come into being and that that was a different situation in the 1980s from that which obtained in the 1960s or in the early 1970s. That was the burden of my general remarks. I hope that for the fine print, so to say, they will be looked at again tomorrow.
In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, emphasised the consequences of this clause for the staff of the metropolitan county councils, in particular of the West Midlands, who do

191
not have a contractual entitlement to local severance terms. The noble Lord and others have claimed that this is unfair, and that this clause, notably in its retrospective effect, discriminates against the staff of those authorities, who, for one reason or another, were slower to introduce their own schemes.
Our objective is, and always has been, to provide compensation terms which would apply generally to this reorganisation and which are fair both to those staff of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils who are left redundant through no fault of their own and to the ratepayers who will have to bear the costs. The position whereby some of the employees of some authorities will be treated more generously than those of others is not of the Government's making, but arises as a result of the pre-emptive and, I should say, misguided and irresponsible action by some (happily, not all) of the authorities concerned.
As I have said, in deciding what terms we should propose we have had to balance the interests of the staff with the interests of the ratepayers. Not surprisingly, therefore, our proposals, which were set out in the November staffing paper, are not quite as generous as those which the metropolitan county councils' own local schemes provide. However, all the metropolitan county council schemes were introduced by those authorities after we announced our general intentions on compensation in the White Paper in November 1983, and safe in the knowledge that they would not have to bear the resultant costs—they would have been abolished and that problem would fall to their successors. I do not think that is really very responsible behaviour, and it is certainly no sensible basis upon which one can prepare regulations.
Amendment No. 136B would require just that. It would require the terms for which our regulations will provide to match, if not better, those resulting from the various local severance schemes existing at 1st March 1984. Our minds are not closed on compensation terms; indeed we have repeatedly invited the unions and the employers to discuss our proposals without prejudice to their opposition to abolition itself. With my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who put this to me, I very much regret that most have not taken up this invitation and that the opportunities for discussion are diminishing. I welcome, with my noble friend, the suggestion in the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, made, that unions should discuss this matter. I hope that the noble Lord will urge his own honourable and right honourable friends, particularly, in another place, to use their influence in that same sensible direction.
It may be that the unions' reluctance to come to the negotiating table on these matters also reflects the view that many among their metropolitan county councils and GLC branches enjoy a contractual entitlement to terms more generous than our proposals and which the Bill does not disallow. If this is the case, I am sorry to say that the confidence of many of their members could be quite seriously misplaced. The information available to us suggests that none of the staff of three authorities—Tyne and Wear, South Yorkshire and West Midlands—enjoys a contractual entitlement to local terms which he or she obtained before my right
192
honourable friend's announcement last year. The other three metropolitan county councils introduced their schemes before that date, in all probability by giving those staff then in post a contractual entitlement to such terms. However, any individual recruited or who has been re-employed by one of those authorities on a new contract since 1st March 1984 will not have such a contractual entitlement. The position of GLC staff is even more uncertain. The council has local Act powers to make compensation payments in excess of those provided by regulation and its staff code describes a scheme which the GLC has operated. However, we have seen no firm evidence from the GLC to suggest that its staff enjoy a contractual entitlement to enhanced terms.
5 p.m.
I have explained these uncertainties at some length but we believe it important that individual GLC and MCC employees should not be misled, either mistakenly or perhaps even deliberately, into believing that they have a right to protected terms which, in practice, under this clause, they do not. The unions' and employers' unwillingness to discuss compensation issues only adds to the uncertainties which their members and employees respectively face.
We hope therefore that unions will yet reconsider their attitude. Our door remains open. But it would be wrong, I believe, to use the MCCs' local severance schemes, adopted, as I have indicated, to anticipate our proposals and without regard to the consequences, and therefore to fetter the negotiating position of my right honourable friend in this way. Against this background, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will not press his amendment.
Before turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and in connection with the two amendments, my noble friend Lord Plummer has correctly described the difficulties which have arisen with the transfer of staff to the London borough of Tower Hamlets consequent on the transfer of housing. I understand that these difficulties arise from this staff transfer being by statutory order and on the GLC's terms and conditions. In dealing with transfer of functions and property under the Bill, we propose instead that the boroughs should be free to recruit the staff they need on their own terms and conditions. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has shown, this, backed up by detriment compensation, will avoid the problems facing the Tower Hamlets transfer.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, would effectively disable the main purpose of this clause. In making the announcement on 1st March 1984—the announcement that foreshadowed the clause—my right honourable friend was following an accepted procedure whereby Governments have sought to ensure that the intended effects of their legislation are not undermined by anticipatory actions. That date is the only date that can be justified. We cannot disallow contractual entitlements obtained before that date and the authorities that have introduced schemes subsequently did so knowing full well that we intended to disallow them in this Bill.
Moreover, this amendment would not merely vary the operative date arbitrarily. It would effectively

193
render irrelevant any discussions with the unions or employers, the very discussions that I have urged should be happening. The amendment would of course allow all the existing local severance schemes to stand provided that they give individuals contractual entitlement. But it would also allow any authority to provide even more generous terms between now and Royal Assent. In providing any such enhancements, the GLC and the MCCs would not need to have regard to the cost of their decisions. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate therefore that the amendment, however well intentioned, would be in the nature of a blank cheque. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, who is not an imprudent man, will not seek to press it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Does not the Minister in his reply indicate that there are not two sets of conditions? If one has regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer—no one could have put it better—there are now three sets of conditions in operation. The people transferred from the GLC, with the housing stock, to the boroughs are in receipt of a scheme that I understand is much more generous than the proposals put by the Government some time last year, I think, as the Minister said. So we really have a dog's breakfast, from whatever angle you look at it. You have people moving through no fault of their own—it is a Government decision that is forcing them to move—who, if the Government's proposals as they stand are accepted, will certainly be at a disadvantage compared to people alongside whom they have worked all their lives who had to move because the Government took a decision on another matter a couple of years in advance.
Both decisions are based on political ideology. I do not grumble about that. But it is only reasonable to accept that people affected by the end product should at least expect fair and equal treatment. I have not seen any particular evidence to substantiate the claim made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, of gross inflation of salaries by some of the local authorities in order to inflate severance pay. Certainly I have not met anyone who accuses the people with whom I am in contact. There have been some rather loose reports in the press. Whether those can be substantiated, I do not know.
I have never found in local government any local authority—because of the way salaries are structured under binding national agreements—that is able to do what it wants with the salaries of officers. Like teachers' salaries, they are often restricted within a tight ring fence. Unless there is a clearer assertion by the Minister that he will look sympathetically upon equal treatment and that there will not be three sets of conditions appertaining to people who have had no say in the decision, I am afraid that I must test the view of the Committee.
The Earl of Gowrie: If the noble Lord must, he must. The fact is that there is no way that any Government, in taking the normal legislative provisions for anticipatory action on the part of those affected by proposed legislation, can retain equity for those who got in under the wire. It was, in the Government's view, mischievous of them to make
194
that particular kind of anticipation. I do not think that the settlements before 2nd March 1984 were reasonable. By implication, in view of our terms, they are not reasonable. Indeed, they are over-generous. They create an inequity in regard to subsequent employees. As I say, it is not—
Lord Dean of Beswick: Will the noble Earl—
The Earl of Gowrie: I want to make the point. Then, of course, I shall give way. The Government are not in a position to legislate retrospectively to remove contractual rights. Apart from anything else—there are other considerations here—as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, we would run right up against the European Court of Human Rights if we did so; and quite right too.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way on this point. He has repeated more than once that the schemes that have been brought into being by the three metropolitan counties that have got them through are more generous than they should be. However, it is a fact that they are less generous than the scheme brought in by the previous Secretary of State in the last Conservative Government in order to facilitate the transfer of houses from the GLC to the London boroughs. That is the point that I am making. They are, I understand, quite considerably less generous than what was imposed by Mr. Heseltine when he was Secretary of State.
The Earl of Gowrie: I do not think that anything has changed in my right honourable friend's character between then and now. But the world has become a much rougher place.
Lord Winstanley: The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, must clearly do as he chooses as regards his own amendment. We have discussed his amendment along with my own Amendment No. 136B. However, I point out that it is Amendment No. 136B which is at present before the Committee. If at a later stage the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, decides to press his own amendment, then that will be another matter.
Having heard the debate on both amendments taking place simultaneously, which is a logical course which has been helpful to your Lordships' Committee, I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that, of the two amendments, I now, perhaps not surprisingly, marginally prefer my own. However, if I could not have my own amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, should know that I would of course support his amendment.
It seems to me that what we are trying to achieve is equality of treatment in respect of redundancy for employees in the relevant authorities irrespective of the particular authority for which they may happen to work. That is what we all wish to achieve.
I listened with the greatest care to the reply given by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. The noble Earl gave a lengthy reply, about which I make no complaint. His reply needed to be lengthy and it was very full. Moreover it was complex and I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that I shall wish to study it with

195
great care in the same way as I shall wish to study what he said last night, which we have not been able to read in the Official Report because it has not yet been printed.
However, there was one particular passage in the noble Earl's reply which I noted and which seemed to imply that he was anxious that, by some means or other, by the time this Bill was finally enacted the treatment of these people in respect of redundancy should have been equalised or been made broadly the same. I noted that that appeared to be his intention by one means or another. There are many means by which that can be done, quite apart from my amendment.
In addition, the noble Earl went on to say that he hoped that by pressing my amendment I would not seek to fetter the Government's hands in their negotiations with the unions. I should perhaps be able to answer that question more clearly if I had a clear understanding of the noble Earl's intention as regards his negotiations with the unions. Indeed, in that respect the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—who is usually so helpful in clarifying matters in your Lordships' House—on this occasion rather muddied the waters, because the noble Lord directed our attention not to the fact that people are being treated unequally in an area in which they should not be treated unequally, but to the faults of the unions which have perhaps brought about some of the inequality.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that "muddying the waters" is a particularly accurate or particularly attractive description of what I was trying to say. I simply asked my noble friend the Minister, who has full knowledge of these matters, whether or not the unions were entering fully and fairly into negotiations. He told us that they were not doing so for doctrinal and political reasons. The noble Lord calls that muddying the waters: I call it clarifying the issue.
Lord Winstanley: If the noble Lord does not like mud I should not dream of throwing any. I would merely say that it seemed to me that the issue had become a little more opaque rather than a little clearer. Perhaps the noble Lord prefers that description.
In my view, if there has been an injustice, it little matters who has caused it—it should be put right. If there has been a fault on the part of the unions, it may be the fault of those unions who are actually getting more than justice rather than those who are not doing so.
The Earl of Gowrie: As we are on the subject of unions, I should like to repeat, perhaps to a marginally wider audience than I enjoyed at midnight last night, the fact that some unions have with great courage defied their national leadership and entered into negotiations with the employers. I hope that more will do so and will find the settlements very reasonable.
Lord Winstanley: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that further clarification. I should like to seek yet more information. If I were right in assuming from what he
196
said that his intention in pursuing negotiations with the various unions—and I gathered that he wished to do so if that were possible—would be to negotiate arrangements whereby the treatment of all the employees of the relevant authorities would become perhaps broadly equal, then I certainly would not wish the Government's hands to be fettered in going about that particular business. However, perhaps the noble Earl will confirm that that would be his intention?
The Earl of Gowrie: Obviously we want broad equality in terms of reasonable settlements. However, as I said at an earlier stage, I cannot rectify the position in respect of those who, mischievously in my view, got in under the wire on 2nd March 1984.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: I am grateful to the noble Earl as, I am sure, is the whole Committee. This is an important matter. I really would like to support what was said at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, that the success of this whole exercise depends fundamentally on the co-operation of staff. We shall not have the co-operation of staff, or the continued co-operation of staff, unless we have fair treatment of staff on an equal basis for all.
My intentions as regards this particular amendment are as follows. I really should like a little more time to study what the noble Earl has said to us today and also to study what he said last night, because I believe that his statements were important. I should like to assess and balance the extent of the undertaking which I received with regard to his aims and objectives in entering into consultations with the unions. Therefore, in the light of all that, and while reserving my right to return to this matter even perhaps on Lord Dean's amendment, but certainly on another occasion in the Bill, I shall for the moment beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 136B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 136BA:
[Printed earlier: col. 184.]
The noble Lord said: Let me finally say that, had the Minister said that he was prepared to discuss the whole question from the start with trade union representatives with a view to giving broad-based, absolutely equal treatment to everybody, I might have been sympathetic as regards not testing the views of noble Lords present. However, the Minister was quite adamant that those who already have it will keep it and that those who do not have it will never get it. On that basis, I should like to test the view of the Committee, because it is essential that we know where we stand.
5.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 136BA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 178.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Amherst, E.

Kaldor, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kearton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kennet, L.

Banks, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Barnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bernstein, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blyton, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brockway, L.

McNair, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mar, C.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Melchett, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Milford, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Molloy, L.

Caradon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

Collison, L.

Nathan, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Phillips, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Reilly, L.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Fitt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Foot, L.

Shinwell, L.

Fulton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayter, L.

Walston, L.

Head, V.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacobson, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Bessborough, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Blake, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Annaly, L.

Brentford, V.

Argyle, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Arran, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Barber, L.

Burton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Bauer, L.

Caccia, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caithness, E. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

198

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cathcart, E.

McFadzean, L.

Cawley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cayzer, L.

Margadale, L.

Chapple, L.

Marley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Marsh, L.

Clinton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Coleraine, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Melville, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Milverton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Molson, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monson, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Morris, L.

Darnley, E.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V.

Moyne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Munster, E.

Donegall, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Dulverton, L.

Orkney, E.

Dundee, E.

Pender, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Portland, D.

Elphinstone, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Radnor, E.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Fisher, L.

Renton, L.

Foley, L.

Renwick, L.

Forester, L.

Rochdale, V.

Forte, L.

Rodney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Freyberg, L.

Rugby, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Davids, V.

Geddes, L.

Sandford, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Savile, L.

Gisborough, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glanusk, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gowrie, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Soames, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Somers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Southborough, L.

Stamp, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hanson, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Holderness, L.

Teviot, L.

Hood, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Torphichen, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Torrington, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Trumpington, B.

Ingrow, L.

Tryon, L.

Ironside, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kemsley, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Vickers, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vinson, L.

Kitchener, E.

Vivian, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Layton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wise, L.

Lloyd George of Dwyfor, E.

Wynford, L.

Loch, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.26 p.m.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Continuity of employment in certain cases of voluntary transfer]:
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 136BB:
Page 36, line 1, leave out ("relevant authority") and insert ("person").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is intended to benefit those GLC or MCC employees who may be recruited by non-successor local authorities in accordance with the provisions of Clause 52(1). As it stands, this clause will provide continuity benefits to GLC or MCC staff recruited by successor authorities. This amendment will provide the same benefits to GLC or MCC employees similarly recruited by non-successor local authorities, or indeed by any other employer to which the 1983 Modification Order applies. It will mean that a GLC or MCC employee who at abolition, or when made redundant if earlier, takes up a post elsewhere in local government will derive the same benefits irrespective of whether or not his new employer is the successor authority—an arrangement which was sought during discussion of this clause in another place.
This amendment will obviously benefit those individuals who obtain a post in a non-successor local authority, but, as your Lordships will appreciate, under Clause 48(3) such authorities will be outside the Staff Commission "ring-fencing" procedures. They cannot therefore be required to give any preference to GLC or MCC employees. We have therefore refrained from proposing this amendment until we were satisfied that the accrued rights which a GLC or MCC employee will take with him to his new job under this clause would not discourage potential employers from taking him on. The Staff Commission and others we have consulted have advised us, I am glad to say, that this is unlikely to happen.
This amendment also complements the one which we shall propose to Clause 57 (and to which I referred during our discussion of Clause 48 yesterday) intended in part to facilitate the recruitment of GLC or MCC employees by non-successor local authorities by enabling a voluntary early retirement scheme in which those authorities could participate. This is of universal appeal and benefit, and I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Briefly, I welcome what the Minister has proposed in these amendments. They will benefit the people involved. I wish he could have been more generous on the previous amendment: however, having said that, I welcome this one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Offers of employment by successor authorities]:
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 136BC:
Page 37, line 29, at end insert—
200
("( ) Where a successor authority engages a person who is currently in the employment of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council it shall enter into a contract of employment with him such that his tenure and conditions of employment including the scale of his salary or remuneration are not less favourable than those he enjoyed in his employment with the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council so long as he is engaged in duties reasonably comparable to those in which he was engaged in his employment with the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council or is engaged in work of equal value; and the expression "work of equal value" means that the person is employed on work which is, in terms of the demands made on him (for instance in such matters as effort, skill and decision) of equal value to the work on which he was employed with the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council.").
The noble Lord said: Late last night, or it may have been early this morning, I spoke to an amendment which sought to require the Secretary of State to designate for transfer to the appropriate successor authority under their existing employment conditions all staff who are in the service of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council immediately before the date of abolition and who are wholly or mainly engaged in functions that are to be transferred. One purpose of that amendment was to ensure equality of treatment in relation to the employment conditions of all staff so transferred, rather than that there are eventually two sets of people working alongside each other one set having preferential treatment over the other.
The amendment did not seek to place a limit on the number of redundancies that there might eventually have to be, but rather to ensure that in conformity with past practice they occurred only at the final stage, following reorganisation, if a successor body needed fewer employees. In reply—and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has already made similar comments this afternoon—if I understood him correctly, he said that the reorganisations contemplated under this Bill were different in kind from earlier ones and that boroughs and district councils must be free to recruit staff from scratch, so to speak. In doing so they could offer what pay and employment conditions they chose but they would give first refusal of jobs to people currently employed by the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils.
The matter was left in the setting that I would read carefully in the Official Report—which, as we already know, is unfortunately not yet available—all that had been said and meanwhile I would reserve my position so that if necessary I could return with an amendment framed on similar lines at Report stage. For the moment, therefore, the Committee should assume that the arrangements for the recruitment of staff by boroughs and district councils will be those proposed by the Government.
In moving this amendment, I will, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 136BD.
Amendment No. 136BD: Page 37, line 46, at end insert—
("( ) A successor authority shall not refuse to engage a person who is currently in the employment of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council without first affording that person an opportunity to appeal against such a proposed refusal to the staff commission established by section 4 of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 and upon hearing any such appeal the staff commission may direct the successor authority to engage the person under subsection (2) above.").
This amendment, which immediately follows Amendment No. 136BC, makes this assumption. Its purpose is clear cut and simple: to ensure that where people currently employed by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council are engaged by a successor authority, their pay and conditions of employment will be no less favourable than those they currently enjoy, so long as their duties in the new situation are reasonably comparable to those in the old. There would thus be continuity in, for example, their pension rights.
If the Government insist on leaving open the possibility of there being some diminution in the pay of such people to being it into line with that of people already employed in or to be recruited from outside by a successor body, then those adversely affected in this way should, in accordance not simply with all precedent but with what is now universally accepted as good personnel practice, receive appropriate compensation.
I am talking here not of recently appointed political nominees, I am speaking of dedicated people who, in many cases, have served administrations of various political complexions for a long time. Some of them have expertise which brings benefits extending far beyond the authority employing them. An excellent example is the scientific branch of the Greater London Council whose work we shall, before long, be discussing. The basic principle which I suggest should command the support of the whole Committee is that reorganisation of local government must on no account be used as a means of obliging people like this to continue to exercise the same levels of skill and diligence at a reduced level of pay or under less favourable conditions of employment than those they now enjoy. Given the severe financial constraints under which the successor authorities will be operating, this could easily happen if staff are not given the protection that this amendment seeks to provide.
As to the new subsection proposed in Amendment No. 136BD, the appeals procedure for which it provides is needed to ensure that the successor bodies cannot—unless they can in an appeal by a complainant convince the staff commission of the validity of their case—escape from the terms of the first amendment by recruiting people who are not affected by it. Clearly that would be detrimental to former GLC and MCC staff, since they might then find themselves with no job at all. Thus local government would be deprived of skills which would be invaluable in mitigating the disruption which will inevitably be occasioned by reorganisation.
A provision of this kind is surely needed to make certain that effect is given to the Government's declared intention, made more explicit by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, last night, that as many as possible of the staff who would otherwise be displaced should be employed by the bodies taking over the work on which they have been engaged. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I rise as a signatory to the amendment to support what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has said. This amendment expresses the wish to give a continuity of service that perhaps was missing in the Bill as drafted. It has become common practice, when a like-to-like job is transferred where
202
the employees have not been the people who have motivated the change, to suggest that some protection ought to be given. On the previous amendment I moved I said that the metropolitan counties and the GLC—my own experience is with the metropolitan counties—at officer level were manned and started almost entirely by people who transferred from the metropolitan districts within the large conurbations.
I think that it would be true to say that probably most of the top officers who were there a decade ago are perhaps now retired. In the main, a lot of their staff followed them into these particular jobs because they were under the impression that they were jobs that were going to last a long time; and of course recruitment has gone on indefinitely on the basis that these establishments were fixed and were going to be there so far as one could see.
I do not quibble with the political decision to alter that structure. That is what politics is about. If you win an election, you do what you have to do or you do what you said that you would do. Sometimes we do not do that; but that is what we are supposed to do. I think that it is incumbent on us when we do that, irrespective of our political colour, to give the utmost protection to the people who are involved and who have no say whatsoever in the process. On that basis I think that the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord McCarthy, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and myself, and which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, deserves support. I said that I did not intend to detain the Committee. I think that the motivation or message behind this particular amendment has been quite clear so far.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I feel that at any rate in London which is the area with which I am most familiar, the adoption of this amendment would give rise to very serious practical difficulties. It is notorious that salary levels, at any rate in the higher grades in the GLC, are above those existing in the boroughs. If therefore someone transferred from the GLC to one of the boroughs is to carry with him at least his GLC salary then his pay will be quite out of line with that of other people in the organisation in which he is working. One does not need to emphasise that to be very clear what discontent and difficulty that would cause.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, says airily that he is not speaking of recently-appointed political nominees. But there is absolutely nothing in his amendment to exclude them. If his amendment is adopted it would apply; and, as your Lordships know, there are plenty of cases of people whose appointments appear to be politically motivated and whose salaries are very high by local government standards. Therefore this amendment would really have an extraordinarily dislocating effect on the successor authorities.
As regard the second amendment which we are discussing, it seems very odd to say that a local authority which for perfectly good reasons may not wish to offer employment to someone redundant as a result of the departure of the GLC, shall not refuse to engage him, really without any apparent qualification unless there is an appeal to the staff commission. That, again, would seem to cause very great difficulties for

203
the successor authorities. I am sure that all your Lordships are anxious about this transition and whether, as on this side of the Committee, we want it; or whether, as on the other side, it is not wanted, we all want it to proceed smoothly. From that point of view it seems to me that these amendments are very counter-productive.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not see how the Government could accept these amendments. They are too rigid. The arguments in support of them are very acceptable indeed. They show the proper compassion that we all feel. We would like to have continuity for people in work; and that is right. But to write into a Bill certain rigid instructions such as these are would, I think, make it almost impossible for the new organisations to work anything like efficiently. I, too, was interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, when he said that he did not intend to include the politically appointed ones but those who were dedicated and who had given their lives to the work.
There is nothing to say that there is that division in the amendment that he wants the Committee to accept. I should have felt that those who were dedicated and who had the experience would be the ones most likely to be acceptable to the new authority. The strength of their appointment would be their dedication, their experience and their knowledge. But I should have thought that to make it a rigid instruction to the new authority in this way would make certain that the alternative to the existing councils could not work at all. I think one has to have a certain belief that the people who take over will want to be fair and just, and that in doing that they will take into account experience and service. I do not think they need this sort of rigid instruction.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will not be quite as commercial as the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who spoke a moment ago. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, rightly distinguished between two types of employees concerned in this redundancy, for that is what it is: those who are political appointees and for whom I myself hold no brief any more than does the noble Lord, Lord Rochester; and others who are employees in the ordinary way of their profession—professional men such as engineers and scientists and others who have been in local government for many years. These people are, in this instance, victims of something which is quite out of their own control. They are being made redundant just as though there had been a commercial takeover. But there is a difference here. This is not a commercial takeover; this is a political act which the Government feel it right to carry out and which the Government are entitled to carry out if they have a majority to support them.
But a political act is different in essence from a commercial one, and the commercial notions of redundancy which are in the redundancy Act which we all know about need not apply where the redundancy is a political one. A political act has
204
political consequences and these political consequences are economic in the case of the employees with whom we are concerned here.
I should have thought that the way for the Government to approach this redundancy was the commonsense one: to try to ensure that the first step in any redundancy in any field of life is carried through; that is, to try to ensure that people are given employment equivalent to the employment that they have lost and the equivalent of the employment is in terms and conditions and salary. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that he saw strength in Lord Rochester's arguments, although I noticed that he did not see strength in their conclusions. That did not surprise me, because he never does.
I hope that the Government will see the strength in the arguments and the strength in the conclusions. I think that these amendments ought to be accepted and I sincerely hope that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will go a great way towards doing so. It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls has said, that the amendments do not quite do what they are intended to do. But this is the Committee stage and there is plenty of time for the Government to put that right. They can accept the principle involved in these amendments and come back at Report stage with the form of words that meets the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and others. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will react to these amendments in this way.
Lord Monkswell: I rise in response to a comment which I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, make from the Benches opposite a few moments ago. He seemed to imply that employees of the GLC and of the metropolitan counties were, so to speak, over-paid. I think that I am right in saying that the employment situation in local authorities is rather different from that appertaining in private industry. In private industry, it is quite possible for an employer to over-pay one of his employees with no harmful effects to himself. In fact, I am sure that we are all aware of numbers of people employed in British industry who are paid over-inflated salaries.
But the situation with regard to local authorities is somewhat different. If a local authority overpays a number of their staff, an individual ratepayer can take them to court, I believe, and it can effectively be proved to be illegal. I seem to remember—no doubt the Minister will be able to give some advice on this—that some councillors in the past have actually been disqualified from serving as councillors because of this very factor. I may be wrong in my remembrance of recent history, but I think the Minister will advise us that in fact it is almost impossible for local authority employees to be overpaid as such. Therefore, that part of the argument against these amendments will not hold water.
The Earl of Gowrie: I welcome the rather robust view of manifesto commitments taken by the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Howie of Troon. I shall recommend them to any of my honourable or right honourable friends in another place who might be wavering.

205
In moving this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, made an eloquent plea, if I may say so, on behalf of the GLC and MCC staff who are facing an uncertain future about jobs and, moreover, are not guaranteed their present terms and conditions in the post-abolition structure. Uncertainty is, I think, the handmaiden of all forms of change, and it is something we have to recognise. I have tried, both last night and today, to emphasise that the uncertainties for individuals as against the future of some of the posts they currently fill is in fact greatly over-estimated. We would anticipate that the vast majority of people are liable to be redeployed on reasonable terms and conditions and that those who are not redeployed will be involved in our voluntary—and I stress that word—early retirement scheme. Therefore I am not a person who wants in any way to add to the uncertainties which individuals, however misguidedly in my view, may be feeling at the moment. Nevertheless, I cannot, alas, accept these amendments because, as I have made clear, this reorganisaton differs in very signal ways from previous ones, and I feel that the staffing arrangements we are trying to make, while they must be fair and be seen to be fair, must reflect these differences.
In the 1974 or 1965 reorganisations the over-whelming majority of staff were transferred with protected terms and conditions to new employers. In those reorganisations smaller authorities were in general being combined into larger ones and the successor authorities themselves were, by and large, new. What I meant when I said in an earlier intervention that the world was then a rougher place is very simple. Growth in that sector of the economy was proceeding apace. That is not a political point; it is an economic point, because growth has been contracting in this area under successive Governments since the 1970s.
On abolition in this case there will be no successors to the GLC and the MCCs at the same level. Their responsibilities will be dispersed to the various successor authorities and bodies and, as I explained during our earlier consideration of the previous staff clauses, transfer is inappropriate where responsibilities are being devolved and divided rather than being aggregated. Nevertheless, as I have said, most staff will in practice be transferred on their existing terms and conditions. The paper issued last November by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Local Government set out those groups of staff who will definitely be transferred by order under Clause 50. That paper also set out examples of other groups whom the successor employers may wish to have transferred to them by this means.
All such staff are engaged in activities which will pass to a single successor in each area, but for staff engaged on other GLC or MCC functions our approach has to be different. Those staff will have to be dispersed among the many successors by way of recruitment. This will be within the so-called "ring fence" procedures which the staff commission has just announced in its circular No. 6. These procedures will require the successor authorities to give first consideration to GLC and MCC employees. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has endorsed the commission's scheme and has confirmed to the
206
commission that it will be his general policy, subject of course to a consideration of the merits of any particular case, to use his powers of discretion over authorities, should the commission find it necessary to ask him to do so. Of course we hope that will not be necessary, and we do not expect that it will be. The commission's guidance and the Secretary of State's reserve power of direction give both GLC and MCC staff an excellent measure of protection.
Clause 53 also places a duty on, and gives a financial incentive to, successor employers to get ahead with working out their staffing requirements and make job offers to GLC and MCC staff before abolition. This will enable former GLC and MCC employees to benefit from the continuity provision of Clause 52, which we have just discussed.
The amendment seeks to extend this by protecting GLC and MCC employees' current terms and conditions when they are recruited to comparable jobs with a successor. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put very clearly and precisely the disruption that that could cause. However, most of these, and especially the boroughs and districts, already exist and have well-established staff structures which could, as he said, be disrupted. In many cases the numbers of GLC and MCC staff they will take on will be small relative to their existing staff. We therefore believe that those employers should be free to integrate any GLC and MCC employees into their existing structures.
I have no doubt that the amendment is designed to assist GLC/MCC staff and would indeed benefit some by protecting their current pay and conditions of service. However, in practice I believe that this amendment would add to the uncertainties faced by GLC/MCC staff. The amendment acknowledges that there must be some relationship between the nature of a job—its skills, responsibilities and so no—and the rewards that it attracts. However, where functions and responsibilities are being devolved to the boroughs and districts, and especially where the functions are concurrent, there will not necessarily be a straightforward or one-to-one relationship between a GLC or MCC employee's job now and the job to which he will move on abolition. The successor authorities may discharge their new responsibilities rather differently and their existing staff structures may also be rather different. In these circumstances it is likely to be far from self-evident, in many cases, whether an individual's pre-and post-abolition jobs are of "equal value" or involve "comparable duties". Successor authorities could of course avoid this by taking on all GLC/MCC employees whom it recruits on their existing terms, but that would be inappropriate because of the knock-on effects which I have described.
Our approach is designed for—and in my view succeeds in—avoiding these problems. Staff will be recruited by successors on their own terms. If GLC or MCC employees suffer detriment in this process, they will be eligible for compensation for loss or diminution of emoluments. That will be paid by the residuary body and not by the new employer. It will take the form of a lump sum. The successor employers' established terms and conditions will therefore not be affected. Individuals will know their likely entitlement when considering particular job offers and will therefore be able to decide matters in the full

207
knowledge of the facts. At this point perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that that is hardly victimisation. I hope, therefore, that with that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will not press his amendment.
I shall now refer to the rather different, though related, Amendment No. 136BD. I do not disagree with the objective underlying the amendment. On all sides of the Committee I think that there is the common object that GLC and MCC employees should take priority in filling the jobs that will arise in the new structure.
6 p.m.
The staff commission exists precisely to further that objective but we cannot accept this amendment which, in our judgment, is unnecessary in the case of the GLC and MCC staff who are to be transferred by order, and also misguided where successor authorities will be in the business of recruiting. Where groups of staff are to be transferred by order, the successor employer will have no rights to refuse to engage any individual who is within the terms of the transfer order. The staff commission, under its powers in the 1984 Act as amended by Clause 48 of the Bill, will be able to advise my right honourable friend whether particular individuals do, or do not, fall within the terms of an order. The commission will design its own procedures for this purpose. Therefore no amendments to the Bill are necessary.
Where staff are to be recruited it is inevitable that for many, if not all, posts there will be more than one applicant from among GLC or MCC staff, each of whom is of course likely to pursue more than one post. The amendment would give all unsuccessful candidates a right of appeal against the successor authority's decision. The final decision would fall to the staff commission, which would have to consider each and every case on its merits.
I am sure that I do not need to spell out in detail to the Committee the implications of this for the process of recruitment and the terrible burden that it would impose on the staff commission. Delay would be inevitable and employees, especially whose who thought that they had found a replacement job, would find themselves in a position of even greater uncertainty.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who raised the issue of overpayments, that we are not talking about overpayments that can be challenged before the auditor, but about differences in grading and salaries arising from different rates and scales in the case of the GLC and the local borough councils; and differences arising from sizes of authorities in the case of the MCCs.
Throughout these amendments pertaining to the terms and conditions for staff, I have tried to provide not merely emotional assurances but very practical indications of the structure which the Government have set up to protect employees after abolition; and to allay their anxieties now. I hope therefore that both noble Lords will not seek to press their amendments.
Lord Rochester: I am not altogether satisfied, if I may so put it, with what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has just said. The Committee will recall that the principle on which I sought to base my amendment was that reorganisation of local government should not on any account be used as a means of obliging the long-serving and dedicated people, of whom I was speaking, to continue to exercise the same levels of skill and diligence at a reduced level of pay or under less favourable conditions of employment than they were enjoying. The Committee will recall that the intention was that the amendment should apply only insofar as the jobs to which the people concerned were going were reasonably comparable with those in the old situation.
The noble Earl said that he felt that more, rather than fewer, uncertainties might arise as a result of these amendments being included in the Bill. I must acknowledge that until the very last remarks that he made in relation to the first of the two amendments to which I have spoken, I was minded to put the matter to the test by dividing the Committee. But I took considerable comfort from what I understood the noble Earl to say; namely, that where people suffered some diminution in their pay in the circumstances I have been outlining compensation would be available to them.
I take sufficient comfort from that to enable me, I hope as a reasonable person and seeking to sense the feeling of the Committee, not to press either of these amendments at this stage. But I should like to examine rather more closely and in more detail what the noble Earl has said, in particular in relation to the second of the amendments, when he went into a great deal of detail, and in that way to reserve my position and to leave me free to come back to this general matter if—together with those who have been kind enough to support me—that is the conclusion we reach. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the first of these two amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 136BD not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 136BE:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Scientific services authorities
PART
SCIENTIFIC SERVICES
.—(1) On the appointed day there shall be established in Greater London and each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of the London Scientific Services Authority or by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Scientific Services Authority", as the case may be.
(2) Each authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the authority.
(3) The constituent councils in relation to the London Scientific Services Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
(4) The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan scientific services authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in that county.
(5) An authority established in pursuance of this section shall provide scientific and technical services in the area of the authority.
(6) In subsection (5) above, the provision of scientific and technical services includes the employment of staff engaged in, and the provision of facilities for, scientific research and

209
development including ecology and nature conservation or the application of science and technology in support of any function of an authority established under section 9 or Part IV of this Act or the constituent councils of such an authority.
(7) Each authority shall be a joint authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act and the provisions of that Part shall apply to this section as if this section were included in that Part.").
The noble Lord said: We now return to the questions concerned with the scientific and technical services provided by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. We touched on these issues in debating Amendment No. 59 and that particular group of amendments when we dealt with the powers of highways and traffic functions; and on Amendment No. 73 where we looked in detail at the question of waste disposal. But an earlier group of amendments, Nos. 131 and 132, which affected scientific services, were in fact withdrawn. I hope therefore that your Lordships will consider that a further debate and some further, I hope helpful, information from the Government about what will happen to these specialist services is warranted at this stage in the Committee.
I believe we shall, at the same time as discussing this amendment, talk to Amendment No. 137 and my amendment to it, Amendment No. 137A. I think that would be convenient for all concerned.
Amendment No. 137: After Claue 60, insert the following new clause:
("Residuary scientific and technical services
.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing section, and subject to subsection (3) below, on the abolition date there shall be transferred to the appropriate residuary body the scientific and technical facilities and staff of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council.
(2) In subsection (1) above "scientific and technical facilities and staff" means facilities for, and staff engaged in, scientific research and development or the application of science and technology in support of any function of the relevant authority.
(3) This section does not apply to any such scientific or technical facilities or staff which on or before the abolition date are transferred to another body under an agreement made in respect of services of the Greater London Council between the London borough councils and the Common Council or in respect of services of a metropolitan county council between the district councils for the area concerned.").
Amendment No. 137A (as an amendment to Amendment No. 137): Subsection (2), line 3, after ("development") insert ("including ecology and nature conservation").
Your Lordships will be aware by today, if you were not previously—and I am sure that anybody taking part in the debates on this Bill was already so aware—that the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, of which I am a member, although I was not a member of the particular sub-committee that looked at local government scientific services, made some forceful recommendations about the need to continue the sort of scientific and technical services which are now provided by the GLC and metropolitan counties. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, at Second Reading, acknowledged that, and the force of the arguments put forward by the Select Committee, when he said on 15th April, [Official Report; col. 441):
"There is … scope for accommodating a good deal of what your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology says about scientific and support services…".
We have touched on a number of these issues before, so I do not intend to go over all the ground in detail, but I should like very quickly to say a word
210
about the sort of services which this amendment covers. I do not think there is any difference anywhere in the Committee about the importance of these services and about the importance of keeping them together and keeping them going in the future, uninterrupted. I want to say a word about the scientific services and to give as an example the Scientific Services Branch of the GLC, just to touch on ecology, which we have debated at previous stages, and to say a word about information technology—something to which the Select Committee paid particular attention.
The Scientific Services Branch of the GLC has its origins over 100 years ago, when a chemist was appointed to the Metropolitan Board of Works. But since that time the scope of the scientific services at the GLC has expanded very considerably and, for example, the branch now monitors environmental pollution, air pollution levels, in London; it provides direct support for fire prevention and detection services to the London Fire Brigade and it provides chemical analyses of food and water. Incidentally, to provide that service it needs an input from trading standards officers, which would be true of metropolitan counties as well, and it seems to me that there is a good argument for those officers coming within the remit of the scientific services authorities which this amendment proposes.
The Scientific Services Branch also has a major role to play in waste disposal, in investigating whether wastes are hazardous and advising on their disposal; it advises on building materials and construction, making cost-saving and energy-saving suggestions and so on; and it advises in a similar way on the purchase of materials, carrying out tests on performance, on wear and tear and so on. Any of your Lordships who have seen one of those Hazchem warning signs on the outside of a building in London or anywhere else in the country, might be interested to know that that scheme originated from work done by the GLC Scientific Services Branch, and from its work it is now a nationally operated scheme. There are many other examples which I shall not go into—fire protection of historic buildings, improving the quality of water in swimming pools, changes in institutional furniture to reduce the hazards of fire, establishing safety standards for floors and play surfaces and so on. There are a number of very important examples of work which that branch has done.
I do not need to spend a great deal of time on the arguments for maintaining this service as a centralised service. Quite clearly, there are economies of scale. In particular, a branch of this sort needs to attract, can attract and has attracted specialists in particular areas and can then employ those specialist skills to the full—something that will be quite impossible if the services are spread throughout a number of different boroughs. Once you get a group of specialists working together, the quality of their work is enhanced by the fact that they are working often in co-operation and with advice from colleagues in the same branch. Different disciplines being able to collaborate together is extremely important. This is what your Lordships' Select Committee meant when it spoke of centres of excellence being difficult and slow to create, but very easy to destroy.
Much the same arguments apply to the ecology branch of the GLC and the expertise that has been built up there. It is a much smaller branch of the technical and scientific services, with six people, but in a way that reinforces the argument about it being impossible to break it up. It is not possible that those six different specialists could be spread around the different boroughs in a way that would make any sense.
6.15 p.m.
It is worth saying that while this amendment, and my Amendment No. 137A to Amendment No. 137, suggest that the ecology unit should be included with other scientific and technical services, there are some disadvantages in that proposal. For example, the link between planning and the ecology unit would be broken. But we are going to face some disadvantages, however these services are reorganised, if the GLC and the metropolitan counties are no longer there. Bringing these services together makes good sense and there is no way of getting round that, if the metropolitan counties and the GLC are to be abolished. Nevertheless, it seems to me that, with other scientific and technical services, it would be sensible to include the ecologists, the specialists in that unit in the GLC, and any similar people working in the metropolitan counties.
I come now to information technology. This, again, is something which the Science and Technology Select Committee of your Lordships' House looked at in great detail. For example, the GLC is a major user of IT. It provides computer services to the ILEA, to all the London borough councils, to other London public authorities, to the Thames Water Authority, to the voluntary sector and so on. Indeed, there are 1,000 mini and micro computers and word processors in the GLC and in the voluntary sector, and over 1,000 terminals throughout London linked to the GLC's main frame computer. This technology is available for over 200 applications, providing up-to-date management information, as operational tools to deliver specific services.
As your Lordships can imagine, this represents a very heavy investment in staff and equipment. It is estimated that to disperse these facilities might cost over £30 million, would take several years and, of course, would lead to massive disruption, the loss of expertise, operating efficiency and so on. Once again, the same arguments for keeping the services together apply—the enormous additional cost that duplication would involve, the tremendous economies of scale which are available if the services are grouped together, the retention of expertise, if the service is kept together and maintained, and the future potential, particularly in the case of information technology, which has a great future potential yet to be realised with the use of this technology. It is for these reasons that it seems to me vital that the scientific and technical services should be kept together in a single unit.
In conclusion, there is another argument which I should like to put to your Lordships in support of Amendment No. 136BE; namely, that centres of
212
excellence do not just depend on the availability of computers and on the fact that a lot of people are working together in a single unit. They depend on the people themselves—on the scientists and technologists. They depend on their experience and on their relationships with their colleagues. These things cannot be replaced, even with the expenditure of very large sums of money.
For example, if the information technology really were to be broken up and spread around the London boroughs, it might be possible to do it at a cost of £30 million or £40 million, or something of that sort, but the relationships between the experts concerned could not be replaced. There would be a very considerable loss, and there will be a very considerable loss, unless there is some certainty among these staff about where their future lies. That seems to me to be the main argument for your Lordships passing an amendment of this sort and putting it in the Bill.
We know that the Government are sympathetic. We know that they recognise the force of these arguments. We need to go one step further, to assure the staff concerned that they will have a future continuing to work together to provide these vital services. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I rise to talk about Amendment No. 137 which is in the names of members of the sub-committee of the Select Committee. In doing so, I offer to your Lordships the regrets of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who unfortunately is out of the country at the moment. Indeed, I regret his absence because he would have moved this amendment much better than I can.
I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said in moving his amendment, that there is fairly genuine agreement in all parts of the Committee that certain services should be kept together. We reached a consensus on highways and on waste disposal, and I think that particularly on waste disposal the arguments apply to these other scientific services. I am specifically not speaking to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, because whatever my views may be I feel it is my job today to speak purely on the Select Committee's proposal. If other noble colleagues on these Benches wish to give a view for the Alliance, it is up to them. I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues on the Select Committee and therefore it would not be right for me to offer a view at this stage on the noble Lord's amendment, save only on his Amendment No. 137A, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 137 to include reference to ecology and nature conservation. There is no doubt that the Select Committee is prepared to accept that amendment although I think the feeling is that the meaning is already subsumed within the wording of Amendment No. 137. Certainly there was no intention on the part of the Select Committee to exclude from its considerations questions of ecology and nature conservation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, we have had one or two nods, winks and hints from the Government at earlier stages of the Bill that perhaps on this question of residual scientific services they might be more amenable than perhaps they were in the earlier stages of the Bill on either the transport and

213
highways amendments or on waste disposal. I hope therefore that it is not necessary to say very much to prod them into giving us an answer which we would all like to hear.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships' Committee of what the Select Committee said on this subject in its conclusions. It recommended,
"that the Local Government Bill should be amended,

(1) to empower the residuary bodies to provide scientific and technical services, if that power is not already available under clause 60;

(2) to empower the Secretary of State by order to confer on any joint authority established by the Bill the further power to provide scientific and technical services"—

in other words, to put into one of the existing joint arrangements the scientific and technical services about which we are talking under this clause—and,
"(3) to empower the Secretary of State by order to establish a joint authority with the power to provide scientific and technical services".
Those last two recommendations were contained in Amendments Nos. 131 and 132, which were not moved the other night because it was rapidly approaching midnight and we felt it would be a mistake to get deeply into this general debate at that stage. I am glad that we are now able to discuss this whole area at a much better time of the day, although it is perhaps later in the day than some of us would have wished.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has dealt extremely well with the scope of the scientific services. I shall spend not more than a minute or two talking about them myself. I am sure that if your Lordships had been able to come with the Select Committee on its visits to the GLC, to Greater Manchester, to the West Riding and so on, and had seen the teams of people and the equipment that is being used there for the benefit of consumers, for the benefit of trading standards, for the fire services, for the police, for forensic services in some cases, and indeed for coroners' courts in some cases, you would have been quite surprised at the amount of scientific expertise, knowledge and equipment that is at the disposal of local authorities today.
I do not know how many of your Lordships know that on the upper floors of County Hall, which I had a feeling was being sold off yesterday, there is a very large series of laboratories which are performing the sort of functions to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred. Those laboratories will be very difficult to replace if they are broken up. Certainly the teams of people who are working in those laboratories are I believe irreplaceable, not because certain individuals cannot be transferred, as we have heard earlier today during the debates on some of the amendments on staffing, but because some of the people who are, as it were, at the pinnacle of those teams could not be afforded by the boroughs.
Individual boroughs simply would not need one of those in each borough. It is because of that more than almost anything else, that we need to keep these teams together. It is because of the fact that the Bill as it stands simply does not seem to provide for the retention of those sorts of people within the system, that the Select Committee felt strongly that it had to put down amendments to the Bill on this subject. I
214
may say that it is an unusual procedure in your Lordships' House for a Select Committee to get involved in what is in many ways a highly political Bill. There was a suggestion the other day by a noble Lord from the Benches opposite that it was somehow slightly improper, that perhaps the Select Committee was getting a bit above itself and that the Government were here to govern and Select Committees were here to mind their own business.
I should like to make a particular point here to your Lordships' Committee on the information that we have received. As the Committee will know, it has not been easy for political reasons for the Government to obtain information from some of the existing authorities. When it came to the Science and Technology Select Committee going around on its visits, we had a completely different response. People were perfectly willing to discuss scientific and technical subjects in detail with the Select Committee with no feeling of holding anything back from us. So it may be that your Lordships' Select Committee is in fact rather better informed on some of these subjects than some Government departments. It is a rare occasion and it is caused by attitudes that I deplore; but nevertheless I believe that it is something that noble Lords might like to take into consideration when considering the amendments which are before us.
In addition to some of the services which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has mentioned, there are many others such as the estimation of asbestos fibres in air samples taken from schools. Many of these things require extremely sophisticated equipment that a single borough would not be able to afford. Even the question of noise pollution—the monitoring of helicopters flying over the whole of the Greater London area or over the whole of a metropolitan county area—could not be engaged in by a single borough.
In Greater Manchester the public analyst serves all the 10 metropolitan districts. The public analyst's laboratory is widely respected not only within the public service but outside. They have links into the universities and they are able to bring their local government expertise and their scientific expertise together in a way in which an outside body, whether it be a consultant or a university department, is totally unable to comprehend. Indeed the evidence that we have received is very much that there should be a greater move towards regionalisation of facilities rather than a breaking down of these facilities. This evidence came to us both from the Government chemist and from a number of other outside bodies that certainly cannot be regarded as political.
I should like to quote from evidence that we received from the Royal Society of Chemistry. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a learned society which is responsible for chemistry for 40,000 or more members throughout the length and breadth of this land and for many overseas as well. It is the body responsible for the examination of public analysts and for the verification of their ability to serve their local authority as a scientific support. When one talks of public analysts, one must recognise that they are now not just a testing station but offer scientific support over a wide range of different subjects. The submission by the Royal Society of Chemistry says:

215
"Trends over recent years partially in response to environmental considerations have been for scientific service units to be built up on an inter-disciplinary basis and for a large body of knowledge and expertise to be developed within them. These scientific service units have come to serve regional needs especially in the most populous areas of the country, and similar trends are likely in the field of information technology".
The society goes on to say:
"As regards any abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, the Royal Society of Chemistry believes it is essential for existing scientific service units to be retained and for the Local Government Bill to incorporate legislative provisions to this effect".
Furthermore, it believes that a,
"network of scientific service units should be provided ideally established as regional laboratories".
Those are the words not of a political party, and not even of your Lordships' Select Committee; they are the words of the Royal Society of Chemistry.
I believe that this document—and I do not propose to read out large tracts of it—emphasises everything that has been said so far in this debate. It underlines the reasons why the Select Committee came to its conclusions. The question, therefore, is: how do we achieve this retention of services since, as I have said, the Bill makes no specific provision?
6.30 p.m.
The Select Committee believes that this reassurance is necessary if we are not going to run into a period, as it were, of human planning blight. There is a great fear that expert knowledge is already being lost. People who fear for the future are already seeking jobs outside the public service in this country and, indeed, outside this country. In some of these cases we have expertise here which is of the greatest possible use to local authorities anywhere in the world. The sooner they can be given an assurance by the Government that their future is secure and that they are able to carry on in the way in which they have been doing—but not necessarily in the same organisation—the better it will be for the future of science and technology in this country as a whole, and particularly in relation to local government.
The Select Committee believes that the obvious place to put this for the time being is with the residuary body. I know that we have had many discussions about matters going to residuary bodies when dealing with earlier amendments, but in this case the Select Committee is not saying it should be put into the residuary body and then democratised, or anything like that. That is far from the minds of its members, because they have also put down amendments which, as I said, have not actually been debated but give an indication of the intention of the Select Committee, which would take these scientific services out of the residuary body at some suitable time and into a more permanent and stable position. It is that position that we seek to achieve and it is that position that we hope to hear from the Government can be achieved.
It is one of the most important sectors of the Bill for the future not only of local government but of science and technology in this country. On behalf of my colleagues in the Select Committee I urge that the Government give as clear a response as they can for the sake of these services and for the sake of the expertise and the people involved.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Your Lordships may well think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has made out an all but unanswerable case that a specialist service, with specialist staff and specialist equipment and a wealth of expertise, ought to be kept together, in London and in each metropolitan county. I have considerable sympathy with the object and spirit of the amendment. The reason why I cannot support it in its present form is that it would set up another series of authorities as joint authorities within the meaning of Part IV of the Bill, which runs against the principle of the Bill especially when linked, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, linked it, with highways and waste disposal.
The hope is that on the merits there could be some scope here for give and take and a measure of compromise. Perhaps these functions could be transferred to the residuary bodies with what my noble friend Lord Elton once described as a catalytic role, as in the case of archives, to enable the transition to operate without unwelcome effect; or perhaps some other better solution may be found which would be acceptable to the Government and to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Taking into account the relationship of this amendment to Amendment No. 137, and other amendments to which the noble Lord spoke, it is surely right that the problems concerned with the ecology units should be taken into account when consideration is given to this.
Therefore, it is hoped that this amendment will not be pressed to a Division as both the amendment and the Bill as it stands, as I see it, are open to a measure of objection. In the long run, whichever way the Division goes, that does not exactly assist the process of constructive compromise; the scope for accommodation referred to by my noble friend Lord Elton. Perhaps one could devise an accommodation along the lines of the technical services and the archives which are highly specialist technical situations even if, as I would oppose, aligning this to the question of highways or waste disposal.
Lord Sherfield: I rise to intervene in this discussion for the purpose of making one point only. Your Lordships have heard a great deal—perhaps rather too much—about the interim report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in regard to scientific and technical services available to local authorities. Unfortunately, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is away and I speak for a moment in his stead. Also, my name appears to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. This amendment has been well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and I need add nothing more in support of Amendment No. 137. I want to say only this. Amendment No. 137 does not go as far as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but, if adopted, it would achieve the result of keeping the scientific services together. In fact, the Select Committee debated the question whether it should recommend the setting up of an authority but decided against it for reasons which it described; but it did not exclude the possibility of an authority for the future.
If there is a Division on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, which is then lost, the work of the Select Committee in this respect will possibly be

217
frustrated and, perhaps more importantly, the message which would go out to the staff of the scientific services in these authorities from this Committee this evening would be exactly the opposite of what the Select Committee intended. In that respect I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on the need to give assurance to the staffs involved. Therefore, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that he should not press his amendment to a Division. Could not your Lordships wait to hear what the Government have to say in response to the Select Committee's recommendations and then, if necessary, return to the matter on Report?
Baroness Lockwood: As a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and its subcommittee which produced the report to which reference has been made, I support the principle behind these two amendments; but I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in asking the Government to try to find some accommodation for these services. The import of the Select Committee's report is contained in paragraph 44 where it says:
"The Committee feels that the retention of the facilities is more important than the precise methods involved".
We have already been reminded that the Minister said on an earlier occasion that there is scope for accommodation. I should like to feel that this evening he can assure us that that is something which the Government are now able to take on board and that he will come back to us at a later stage in our deliberations on the Bill to indicate how the services and the teams involved can be retained and kept together to continue the leading work that they have been doing in the whole area of science and technology.
We have been reminded in the course of the discussion that some amendments to the Bill have been made and to a certain extent they have covered aspects of the scientific and technical services. Perhaps the solution would be, as the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Tordoff, said, to bring the services into one of the joint authorities concerned either with waste disposal or urban traffic and highways; or, alternatively, it may be better to take them into the residuary body until such time as we can determine a permanent future for them. But I think that what we want to hear tonight is that these services will be retained as a unit so that they will continue to function effectively.
The Earl of Halsbury: I should like to reinforce both sets of pleas which have been made this afternoon—both that made by my noble friend Lord Sherfield to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, not to press the amendment to a Division, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and others to the Government to come clean and tell us what it is they really want and ought to do.
Two themes have been woven like strands through the whole of these Committee proceedings. One is what I might call the strategic theme of wanting to see the Bill on the statute book and then tidying up the loose ends by powers given to the Minister in the Bill. The other is the tactical theme of wanting to see all the
218
"i"s dotted and all the "t"s crossed before we put the Bill on the statute book. The Government support the strategic theme, and so do I. I think that if we tried to dot all the "i"s, cross all the "t"s and tidy up the loose ends in this Bill we should be in Committee until doomsday. But we cannot apply that principle too heavy-handedly because some services must not hiccup on vesting day. The fire services cannot hiccup, and the Government of course acknowledge that. I think that the scientific services come within the same rating.
In your Lordships' wisdom and through the wisdom of honourable Members in another place, from time to time we legislate statutory obligations into existence. A very large number of them are carried out by public analysts. If I seem to be overemphasising chemistry I must ask forgiveness. I am a chemist and I am a member of the legal and parliamentary committee of the Royal Society of Chemistry which gives the evidence to which my noble friend Lord Sherfield and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred. It has not come to an end of it. It was at it last week. It was interesting for me to exercise my prerogative of sitting in on a Select Committee to listen to my colleagues in the Royal Society of Chemistry presenting the evidence that in part I had helped to formulate for the benefit of the Select Committee.
If one is dealing with the disposal of toxic waste, you do not know whether the waste is toxic or not until a chemist has told you that it is. Those services must continue. If you want to know whether recycled water is to standards laid down by the public health authority, again it is to a chemist you can go. Public analysts are quite rare birds. They have to have a master's degree in analytical chemistry as specified by the Royal Society of Chemistry and then receive an appointment as a public analyst. Some of them operate as servants of a local authority; some of them are what are called consultant public analysts; and they are like a doctor, partly on the national health and partly in private practice. They will take on public analyst work if they have the requisite qualifications.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on behalf of the Government will be able to give us in more or less detail what it is that he plans to do to see that there is no hiccup on vesting day and that these highly qualified, professional people simply carry on with their work unchanged. I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, into the Division Lobby. As I say, I agree with the Government's strategic philosophy. I just hope that, since the noble Lord now has had a month to think over what was said at Second Reading, he is able to give us the assurance for which we have all asked.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: I have been asked to come clean in order to avoid hiccups and to prevent our staying in Committee until doomsday, which are desirable aims in themselves; and I shall do my best. I regret with the rest of your Lordships, because of his special interest and expertise in this Committee, that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook cannot be with us today. But I must say that we have not suffered too much from his absence because of the admirable expositions of those

219
who have spoken on his behalf round the Chamber. He chaired your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee which recently reported on precisely these issues.
May I break for a moment in order to put one possible misunderstanding straight? I know that unintentionally I gave the impression at an earlier stage in Committee that in some way I was making a comparison between the recommendations of your Lordships' Select Committee and those of the Select Committee in another place. What in fact I said was that I thought it would be a pity to use the recommendations of your Lordships' committee unnecessarily to prevent the implementation of the recommendations of a Select Committee in another place. I meant what I said, but I hope that there will be no incompatibility. I must be very careful not to offend Select Committeemen of another place, so I shall say only that I think that your Lordships' Select Committee has at least as much authority and expertise as any Select Committee in another place.
I think that it may help your Lordships if I start by briefly trying to pull together the amendments mentioned in the debate so far. Amendment No. 136BE, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, with great concision and clarity, if I may say so, requires the establishment in all seven areas of a joint authority to provide scientific and technical services. It has the same basic effect as the earlier amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook which was then called Amendment No. 132; but there are two differences. First, the present amendment provides for the authorities to be established directly rather than by order of the Secretary of State; and, secondly, it includes specific reference to ecology and nature conservation, thus betraying the noble Lord's considerable interest and expertise in that side of things.
Amendment No. 137 was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stedman, and in the process he—
Noble Lords: Lord Tordoff!
Lord Elton: I saw a reference to the "Baron" Stedman on the Marshalled List at a point that we have not reached. I had not realised that I was so subliminally open as to transfer that. I meant to say the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who also referred to Amendment No. 131.
Amendment No. 131—and I suppose that I am speaking to the ghost of Amendment No. 131—would have allowed the Secretary of State by order, after consulting the joint authorities involved, to transfer responsibility for scientific and technical services in relation to police, fire, passenger transport, highways, waste disposal and any district function to one of the joint authorities established to carry out any of those functions.
Amendment No. 137, which is ahead of us on the Marshalled List, and alive and well, would transfer the existing scientific and technical staff and facilities of the GLC or the metropolitan county councils to the appropriate residuary body.
220
That may seem rather a confusing range of options. However, I believe that the basic intention behind all of them, and specifically of the two that remain on the Marshalled List, is to implement recommendations contained in the report of the committee chaired by my noble friend. I should add that Amendment No. 137 is clearly an interim measure. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made that specifically clear. I shall hold him to it because of course if he had not, it would have been open to all the objections which the Committee has repeatedly accepted as rendering that course of action unacceptable. So it is a temporary home that he is looking for, and that brings his designs very close to my own.
The Government fully recognise, I repeat, the importance of the scientific and technical services. We are as anxious, as is your Lordships' Committee, to ensure that valuable support services in this field, as in others, which will be required after abolition, should be retained.
I fully accept the force of the point that in the time between Royal Assent and 1st April 1986 it might not be possible to resolve to the satisfaction of all the parties the future arrangements for these services. I therefore understand the purpose and importance of Amendment No. 137.
I think it may help the Committee to come to a view on Amendment No. 136BE—and noble Lords have echoed this around the Chamber—if I expand a little on that statement and our intentions as to that amendment. I think I can go a considerable way towards meeting the noble Lord's point on it. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Local Government has of course already made it clear that our department of Government will use its good offices to ensure that support services and facilities can be maintained where successor authorities so wish. This of course includes the possibility of temporary transfer to the residuary bodies until permanent arrangements can be made, as, indeed, Amendment No. 137 proposes.
I can go further than that and repeat that we shall ensure that the residuary bodies take the initiative in encouraging such arrangements; the catalytic role referred to by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I give an undertaking that we shall invite them to make special studies of existing facilities and to have discussions with successor authorities well ahead of abolition. I believe that this will achieve what I understand to be the noble Lord's real objectives and those of the Select Committee.
What will happen will be that the residuary bodies will be given a crucial role, as catalysts, for preparing the future of these services, taking over the services on a temporary basis, if necessary, and deciding on permanent arrangements. This will give the successor authorities time to consider permanent arrangements for scientific and technical services. They will in fact be considering it while they are gaining experience by exercising responsibility for the statutory functions which these services support now and which they will be supporting from their temporary base with the residuary bodies.
To establish this point beyond peradventure I shall bring forward at Report an amendment to make it

221
clear that the residuary bodies will take an active part in identifying and securing the future of worthwhile centres of expertise. As has been made clear previously, however—and I refer now to Amendment No. 137 on the Marshalled List—the residuary bodies themselves are not an appropriate long-term solution. It is such a solution that is being sought in Amendment No. 136BE.
I recognise that many noble Lords would like us to determine now how these activities will be organised in the future. Let us look at the alternatives. The first is that preferred by the Government, and I believe the most likely: a joint agreement by the boroughs and districts with one of them probably taking the service on, on behalf of all, on a reimbursement basis. The boroughs and districts already have powers to do that under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. Moreover, in relation to research and information collection functions, the new clause which we shall be discussing on Amendment No. 140A provides powers for a scheme to designate a lead council. I shall return to that in a moment.
The second alternative is that proposed by those who favour the approach expressed as Amendment No. 131. That consists of using one of the new joint authorities created by the Bill to do the job. However, it is already proposed to give the joint authorities powers to enter into arrangements with local authorities to provide services to those authorities. This is done by paragraph 47 of Schedule 14. The paragraph amends the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 for this purpose. In the event of such arrangements being made, the residuary bodies would already have powers under Clause 55 to ask the Secretary of State to transfer the property concerned in accordance with the arrangements reached by and with the authorities.
The third alternative is that proposed in Amendment No. 136BE, the one now before us. This would provide for the setting up of an additional new body for the specific purpose of entering into arrangements with local authorities for the provision of these services. However, again, Clause 65 already provides for this. Thus, both the first and second of those powers will already be open to us at any time.
Agreements between boroughs and districts and the new joint authorities can be made in time to take effect on 1st April 1986 or after and the staff and property can pass to the body that is to become responsible for support activities. If it takes rather longer to decide on these arrangements, staff and property can be transferred to the residuary bodies on a temporary basis, pending a move from the residuary bodies to their new homes. The Bill allows for that.
Clause 65 also provides powers for the Secretary of State to set up new bodies, if necessary. This means that if the successor authorities see that as the most appropriate way, arrangements can be made under Clause 65, as at present in the Bill, to establish the new body.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked that such new authorities should specifically include ecology and nature conservation and that they should be mandatory rather than permissive. Of course, we have discussed the future of ecology and nature
222
conservation at an earlier stage. I do not want to go over that ground in detail again any more than he did. However, I hope that the noble Lord will accept two points: first, that the assurances I have given generally apply equally to the particular expertise that concerns him; and, secondly, that in including a highly specific prescription of the kind he wants, there is always a danger that the result will be too narrow when put into practice. I think the noble Lord acknowledged that when he said that there were disadvantages in what he proposed.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale assured the Committee on 7th May that the residuary bodies would provide a temporary home for expert units and that we would be looking carefully at the Bill to see how it can be improved. Today I have gone further and explained the active role that we envisage for the residuary bodies and have undertaken to bring in an amendment. I have shown the Committee the flexibility that exists under the long-term arrangements in the Bill. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord is reasonably content that we have sought to meet his anxieties.
However, I hope that all those who feel so strongly about this issue will recognise the unreality of seeking to preserve, for ever, the present services provided by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. The raison d'être of a support service is the service it supports. Changes in the latter will mean changes in the former. To limit the discretion of successor bodies to avoid what might be seen as a reduction in these services could well have the effect of limiting beneficial change and improvement. These centres of expertise have grown up because there is a need for them and they have proved their worth. There is no reason for that need to disappear. I am confident that successor bodies will see the benefits that such services can provide.
I now direct the Committee's attention again to what I have signalled we propose for later in the Bill, the new clause, after Clause 85, which appears as Amendment No. 140A on the Marshalled List.
Amendment No. 140A: After Clause 85, insert the following new clause:
("Research and collection of information.
.—(1) A scheme may be made for Greater London or a metropolitan county by the constituent councils whereby one of those councils designated by the scheme has the function of—

(a) carrying out, or assisting in carrying out, investigations into, and the collection of information relating to, any matters concerning that area or any part of it; and

(b) making, or assisting in making, arrangements whereby any such information and the results of any such investigation are made available to any other local authority in that area, any government department or the public.

(2) Any such scheme shall require the other constituent councils to contribute as provided by subsection (3) below to the expenditure incurred by the designated council in carrying out its functions under the scheme.
(3) The constituent councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure of the designated council which has been incurred with the approval of a least two-thirds of the constituent councils; and the amounts of the contributions shall be determined so that the expenditure in respect of which they are payable is borne by the constituent councils in proportion to the populations of their respective areas.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above the population of any area shall be taken to be the number estimated by the Registrar General and certified by him to the Secretary of State by

223
reference to such date as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.
(5) A scheme may provide that, if two-thirds of the constituent councils so decide, the designated council may require all or any of the constituent councils other than the designated council to carry out in respect of their respective areas an investigation into, or the collection of information relating to, any specified matter concerning the area covered by the scheme or any part of it; and where such a requirement is imposed on a council—

(a) that council shall comply with the requirement in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the requirement; and

(b) if that council fails to comply with the requirement the designated council may itself do what was required and recover the cost of doing it from that council.

(6) The expenditure which is to be borne as mentioned in subsection (3) above shall not include—

(a) any expenditure of the designated council which is recoverable by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (5) above; or

(b) if a requirement is imposed by virtue of that subsection on all the constituent councils other than the designated council, any expenditure incurred by that council in doing in respect of its own area what is has required the other councils to do in respect of their areas.

(7) Any information collected by the designated council, and the results of any investigation carried out by it, in the exercise of its functions under the scheme shall be made available, on request, to each of the other constituent councils.
(8) A scheme shall not come into force before the abolition date but shall continue in force until the end of at least two financial years after that in which it is made.
(9) A scheme may, in the absence of agreement between all the constituent councils, be made by a majority of those councils so as to be binding on all of them; but a council shall not be designated by a scheme except with its consent.
(10) A scheme may contain such supplementary provisions as the councils making the scheme think necessary or expedient and, subject to subsection (8) above, may be revoked by those councils (or, in the absence of agreement between all of them, by a majority of those councils) with effect from the end of any financial year after that in which the decision to revoke the scheme is made.
(11) The council designated by a scheme may by giving not less than twelve months' notice to the other constituent councils withdraw its consent to act as the designated council with effect from the end of any financial year not earlier than the second financial year after that in which the scheme was made; and in that event the scheme shall terminate when the withdrawal takes effect.
(12) For the purposes of this section the constituent councils are—

(a) in relation to Greater London, the London borough councils and the Common Council; and

(b) in relation to a metropolitan county, the councils of the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.

(13) Whether or not a scheme is made under this section a London borough council, the Common Council and a metropolitan district council shall have power to exercise any of the functions described in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above.
(14) The appropriate Minister with respect to any matter may require any such council as is mentioned in subsection (13) above to provide him with any information with respect to that matter which is in the possession of, or available to, that council in consequence of the exercise of any powers conferred by or under any enactment.").
I have today received a letter from the London Boroughs Association which I think the Committee will wish to consider in connection with this amendment. It is written by Councillor Randall, who says:
"I am writing to you on behalf of the association to tell you that you have our full support for the new clause that you have proposed should be added to the Local Government Bill in respect of research and information. The new clause, with its wider powers, should
224
allow the London boroughs to provide a comprehensive research and information service on all matters that are generally agreed as essential or most effectively undertaken on a London-wide basis.
"The association's committees have already given their initial consideration to a number of areas of research and information likely to be required following the abolition of the GLC. These include planning, traffic and housing data collection and analysis, and the scientific services and research library and related facilities currently provided by the GLC. The association's officers are now preparing a comprehensive report that will be considered by the association's committees in mid-June. I cannot say to you that we will by then have a definite blue-print for the future of research and information services for London. Nor do I think it would be appropriate for the association to reach final conclusions at this stage. The association will want to consult with other interested parties and particularly with those London boroughs that are still at this stage refusing to consider the implementation of the Local Government Bill's provisions. Nonetheless, I should conclude by again reiterating the association's support for the new clause which will make the realisation of a joint London borough research and information service far easier to achieve".
7 p.m.
I have given an assurance that we shall safeguard scientific and technical support services through any potential difficulties in the transitional period, if necessary by ensuring that the residuary bodies actually take on the staff and the property on a temporary basis themselves. I have assured your Lordships that the residuary bodies will assist in ensuring satisfactory long-term arrangements. Your Lordships do, I hope, now see that these long-term arrangements can be secured under the provisions of the Bill. If your Lordships accept them, then, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, may be reassured that the work of his Committee would not be frustrated and that no sinister message would go out from this House on the matter to those who work in this important field.
I have told your Lordships of the reaction in the field to the new provision that we propose to put into the Bill after it has been published for barely a fortnight. I think that there is sense in the advice that your Lordships have had that you should consider whether this does not actually answer every point that has been raised by the Select Committee, to which I pay the greatest tribute.
Baroness Stedman: The noble Lord referred to paragraph 47 of the schedule, which enables a joint authority to be set up under Part IV of the Bill. If it is agreed that there shall be such a joint authority will that authority have precepting powers, or will it only be able to do the work by agreement with the other authorities?
Lord Elton: I rather hope that some others of your Lordships will have questions to ask.
Lord Tordoff: I can perhaps help the noble Lord the Minister while certain negotiations are going on in response to the question that has been put to him. Before the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, decides what he wishes to do on his amendment, I should like to respond on behalf of those of us who are supporting Amendment No. 137. The Minister went a long way, I believe, in the earlier part of his remarks, to offer reassurance. I then felt that he started, not to back away, but to cause further confusion. I rather regret that. If that part of the brief had gone back to whence it came, we might have been a little more reassured. I

225
fear that the message that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, asked for, is not coming out quite as clearly as we would have wished. Nevertheless, it is my belief that the message is there. We shall clearly have to look in the Official Report at what the noble Lord the Minister has said.
I fear more than anything the reliance of the Government still on the lower tier local authorities getting together and doing these things. Certainly, the Select Committee was very worried about that. It did not really believe that the evidence was there to support that view. The Minister clearly believes that this is still a possibility. I hope that his assurances that the interim bodies are to take an active role will at least for the time being be sufficient reassurance to the people, for whom both I and, I believe, the rest of the Select Committee are speaking, that their future is secure. We await with interest the amendment that the Minister has undertaken to put down at Report stage. From my point of view, I would certainly not wish to press the matter any further this evening. I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may take the same view. I would certainly urge him to do so.
Lord Elton: We must remind ourselves that this is Committee stage. We get into an awful sort of Second Reading stance on this Bill for some reason. It is, however, Committee stage and we can get up and down. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, the order would make provision for the money to be raised and it could be raised in the form of a precept.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has, I think, decided to consider what I have said. I hope that I did not sound as though I was retracting anything in the later stages. I was saying something that I should perhaps have stated at the beginning. I have to say it on every occasion. Any prudent manager has to say it. I am not even the manager. The Government are not the manager. One cannot guarantee absolutely that everything now happening will go on happening for ever. One must give the people who use the service the chance to decide what service they want. They may want more; or they may want less. It was right that I should say that.
What I have said is that by the three powers that I have indicated in the Bill, it will be possible for all these services that are wanted to be continued. If the arrangements cannot be made before the abolition date, there is a safe home for these services with the residuary bodies. When they emerge from the residuary bodies, they will emerge in a form in which they can be financed, as I have described to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. Indeed, if there was such a voluntary agreement, then the residuary body might actually be a staging post on the way to the regional arrangements that the Select Committee of the House recommended.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I have only one point to make. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was, I believe, uncharacteristically unfair. I thought that my noble friend Lord Elton gave an almost 100 per cent. assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, thinks that too. The only reason I butt in is that the noble Lord, Lord
226
Tordoff, produced once again a problem which, if you sense it, makes you doubtful about the whole Bill. The noble Lord said that he still had doubts as to whether or not the smaller local authorities could come together. We should always keep in mind, when that thought and doubt arises, that the Minister has reserve powers under the Bill to see that, if they do not voluntarily come together, what is wanted will be done under his authority.
We should take it into account that when my noble friend was making his statement in answer to the two well-presented amendments he was talking with authority as a member of the Government. Whatever doubts one might have about the possibilities of the smaller local authorities coming together, we should have no doubt that, on the authority of the Government spokesman, stated clearly in answer to the noble Lord, the general implementation of preserving what is needed and what is good will, indeed, be carried out.
Baroness Birk: I was a little unclear about what the Minister said. I share what may be some of the confusion that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, expressed. My feeling, when the Minister started speaking, was that he was talking about bringing forward an amendment which, as I understood it, would be very much along the lines of Amendment No. 137, now before the Committee. Further into his speech, the noble Lord seemed to be relying upon what is already in the Bill. He explained how, under various clauses and schedules, what had been mentioned was built into the Bill. It is this aspect that is rather mystifying some of us. Is the Minister intending to bring forward an amendment on Report? Or is he relying on what, as he explained carefully, is in the Bill? We are a little confused.
Lord Elton: I am obliged. I have clearly not been as lucid as I would have wished. There are two amendments in question. One, already on the Marshalled List, is Amendment No. 140A. That is the amendment which elicited the letter which I would have thought would have allayed almost all the fears subsequently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He will tell me in a minute why it has not done so.
The other amendment is not on the Marshalled List but I have undertaken to bring it forward at Report. That amendment will specify what I have described as the "catalytic role" of the residuary body, and that is a departure from the scheme in the Bill. So the residuary body is no longer an inert shelf on to which you put this valuable treasure: it is an organisation into the care of which you take it, and that organisation has the duty of finding a home for it before its demise, which is scheduled in five years.
Therefore, if we put those two new items into the Bill and ally them to what is in the Bill already which is old but not sufficiently understood, I still think that we are giving a package which answers all the concerns that the Select Committee can hope to have satisfied. I cannot satisfy the hopes that some of your Lordships may have that every single one of these functions will continue as it does now. That would be something which the noble Baroness, if she were back behind this Dispatch Box, could not do, either.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Certainly I do not wish necessarily to see every function continued in perpetuity as it is at present. Certainly that is not the view of the Select Committee.
I should like to return to the question of the letter, which I have only heard read out and which I should very much like to study in the Official Report tomorrow. It seems to me that, as regards that letter and also the amendment which is already tabled as Amendment No. 140A, there was a reference to research. When Mrs. Lynda Chalker appeared before the Select Committee, she dwelt to a considerable extent on research. Of course, we are not just talking about research; we are talking about a wide range of technical and scientific duties which reside in the bodies that we are discussing. It is just the slight overemphasis on research rather than on the full range which is a little worrying. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his most recent summary—
Lord Elton: I am not sure of the date, but I think that the amendment that they wrote about appeared on the Marshalled List, at the most, about a fortnight ago, or rather less. You would not expect the whole thing to be seized upon in a moment. It is a profoundly encouraging reaction.
Lord Melchett: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said a little earlier in the debate that we sometimes seem to be slipping into a debate rather like a Second Reading debate, and he wondered why that was so. I must say that during this debate and on previous occasions during our discussions on this Bill I have had to pinch myself to remind myself that we are not debating a Second Reading in another place, and that the Bill has been all the way through another place and through a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and is now getting very close to the statute book. What we have had from the Government on crucially important issues of this nature is still, to my mind, incredibly vague, extremely uncertain and not at all carefully thought out. The discussion which the noble Lord has just had with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, seems to me to underline the situation. We have crucial scientific and technical services, and we are still not clear whether we are talking about them or research, what the London Boroughs Association are on about, and so on. I think that the noble Lord should be surprised that any of us has managed to convince himself that we are actually taking part in a debate at a very late stage in the passage of the Bill.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord accuses me of being vague, I ask him to read Amendment No. 140A at some stage. I do not ask him to read it now, because it will take some time. It is fairly detailed.
Lord Melchett: I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had to say about that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who spoke from behind the noble Lord, urged me to withdraw the amendment. Of course, I shall study what was said in Hansard tomorrow, but I must say that I was left with the impression of some vague hope that this would all be all right in due course, heavily qualified by remarks about it all being possible anyway because of
228
provisions already in the Bill. All of that has led to an extremely uncertain outcome.
I made a note at the time that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, talked about this being given initial consideration by the London Boroughs Association. These are crucial services; and these are expert people. Uncertainty has been hanging over them for months and months. The noble Lord comes to the Committee and says that the matter has been given some initial consideration. It should have been given initial consideration years ago, not weeks ago. The noble Lord went on to say that if they agree, "it may be possible", and, "these things can be done" under the existing legislation. He did not use words like "will", or, "we shall ensure", or anything of that kind. As he said himself, he felt it necessary to qualify all that he said, and in my view he did so in terms which did not meet the concern of your Lordships' Select Committee or of those of us who spoke in favour of the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
If I had been left simply with the urgings of the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to withdraw the amendment because by pressing it and risking losing the vote we would be increasing uncertainty, I must say that I would have pressed the amendment immediately to a Division. It seems to me that nothing could be more vague than the type of terms which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, used to suggest that we should withdraw the amendment to reduce uncertainty. However, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and my noble friend Lady Lockwood made some telling points—as did other noble Lords who spoke earlier in the debate—about leaving the matter.
I am quite happy to acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has again gone some way towards assuring us of the Government's commitment to see that if something can be done it will be done in some way or other. However, all of it is extremely uncertain. For example, the noble Lord said that the residuary body would now be acting as a catalyst. It may be appropriate, as this is something proposed by the Science and Technology Select Committee of your Lordships' House, if I dredge up some A-level chemistry from many years ago to remind your Lordships of the function of a catalyst.
As I understand it, a catalyst is used to speed up the reaction between two or more chemicals of known qualities and quantities, with the intention of producing a reaction which will produce a known and desired product or outcome. That is not what the residuary body will do. The residuary body will not be acting as a catalyst as I understand the term: it will be used to look at something with a whole lot of things chucked in—who knows what, but there are a lot of them around, as the noble Lord told us—and it will come up with some type of reaction. Whether the laboratory will be blown up in the process, the noble Lord and the London Boroughs Association do not know and will not tell us.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has a much better recollection of A-level chemistry than I do. He has warned me, and I undertake to stay out of the

229
laboratory in future and to use a different analogy. However, I think that your Lordships knew what I meant.
Lord Melchett: My concern—and this is a serious point—is that it will not just be the noble Lord who will be staying out of the laboratory in future but the scientists and technicians employed by the GLC and the metropolitan counties who will be leaving the laboratories in their droves and going to work elsewhere. The exact outcome which your Lordships' Select Committee feared will come about. It seems to me that that is a shameful way in which to treat what your Lordships' Select Committee quite rightly described as centres of scientific and technical excellence.
I do not believe that it will be good enough to leave the matter where the noble Lord has suggested we should leave it. We shall have to come back to the matter at the next stage of the Bill and convince those experts—because I believe that that is the job which your Lordships now have—that they will have a place to which to go, and tell them where it is and what they will be doing. So far the Government have not come clean in any of those respects. In the hope that we shall be able to do that at the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Establishment of residuary bodies]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 136BF:
Page 38, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Of the persons first appointed to be members of the residuary body established for Greater London or a metropolitan county one shall be appointed by the Secretary of State from among the members of, and after consultation with, the joint committee established for that area under section 93 below.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to establish a link between membership of a residuary body and membership of the organising committee of councillors which Clause 93 requires the borough and district councils to set up in each area. I am sure that it would help if I placed this in the wider context of appointments in general to the residuary bodies and of the tasks which will fall to be carried out before abolition day.
The residuary bodies are required to wind up the outstanding affairs of the expiring authorities. At abolition they will take on a number of important but uncontroversial tasks, especially winding up the accounts, administering external debts, administering the superannuation funds, making compensation payments to staff and taking responsibility for residuary property and legal rights and liabilities. These are technical tasks and they are to be transitional responsibilities. The residuary bodies will either wind them up or prepare them for a permanent home with the borough and district councils. That is why we intend to appoint, as chairman and members of the residuary bodies, people committed to working themselves out of a job—people with financial and other related experience, people with public and local government confidence and people with an ability to work with local government in their areas. We do not rule out appointing elected members but the residuary
230
bodies are not representative, nor should there be any potential for conflict of interest with successor authorities.
We intend to make initial appointments of a chairman and perhaps two key members of each body on an advisory basis—in accordance, I should add, with normal precedent—before the Bill is enacted. They will be able to start planning for the formal establishment of the bodies after Royal Assent. Later appointments at that stage might be expected to take account of the final form of legislation.
The residuary bodies will have a considerable job to do between Royal Assent and abolition day. They will be indentifying the property, rights and liabilities which will fall to them. They will be preparing to take over their functions at abolition. They will be identifying and approaching the staff they need, and they will be acting—it says here because I wrote it, as "catalysts", but I withdraw the word, and your Lordships can substitute another—as the agents of change.
These preparations will clearly bring the residuary bodies into frequent contact with the successor authorities. As those authorities will be required by Clause 93 to set up organising committees to coordinate their preparations, and as those authorities will set up the new joint authorities soon after Royal Assent, it follows that those authorities should co-ordinate with the residuary bodies. Accordingly we propose this amendment to secure a link by way of one member in common between each residuary body and the appropriate organising committee. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I wonder whether this might be an appropriate moment to raise something I recollect has appeared in the newspapers in the last two or three days, and whether I am right about the first named appointee to carry some responsibility in this field? I have warm regard for Mr. Tag Taylor, having worked with him in a number of spheres in the past. But would the Minister care to tell the Committee whether he has in mind that the kind of political background that Mr. Tag Taylor has—and of course one of which he is proud, as he is entitled to be—is a forerunner of the kind of political appointee who will find himself as head of the bodies we are discussing, or whether there will be a wider remit to find the best possible people?
The Minister might say that the best possible people are those with the political background of Mr. Taylor. But could the Minister enlighten the Committee as to how wide his remit will be to ensure, for instance, that there will be senior, or near-retired, or recently retired chief officers of local authorities, et cetera? I am sure that the Minister appreciates that I raise the question genuinely to find out precisely what is in the Minister's mind in these matters.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am sorry that the noble Lord has raised that question at this stage. I do not see how anyone other than the head of the armed forces, or a civil servant of the highest rank, can be found who has not paid some interest in politics in their lifetime. I should have thought that the knowledge of politics, and having taken an interest in them, is an adjunct rather than a disadvantage.

231
If we are going to start denigrating people because they have been interested in politics, we are ruling many people out. The noble Lord in a way has done just that. I am rather sad. The objection to this name (which has not been officially announced, so far as I know, but which, like so often, has been bandied about in the newspapers) is because he was known to have been interested and to have played some part in one political party or another.
I do not think that that matter ought to be taken into consideration. If the noble Lord can say that this has been mooted as a possible name, and he does not think that he has the personal qualifications, or he has not got the knowledge to do this job, that is another matter. But to say that because he has shown some sort of interest in politics is a disadvantage, and that somebody ought to be found who never had shown any interest in politics, will make the choice a pretty narrow one.
I have heard it so often, but as one who has played some part in politics at various small levels for many years, and who I hope has been able to be a worthwhile councillor and a not unreasonable Member of Parliament, I hope that the fact that I have been interested in politics in no way removes any abilities I might, or might not, have in business generally.
I am sad that this factor has been brought in. It is unnecessary. The noble Lord is one for whom I have the greatest admiration, and he has great experience, and I would not like him to be kept out of doing a job that he could do well because he has been interested in politics at some time.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord defends himself may I remind him that the gentleman in question is now called Sir Godfrey Taylor.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I knew him as "Tag". The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has completely misunderstood—and I believe accidentally—the tenor of my inquiries. On the first public announcement of a named person with some responsibility, it emerges that this man—and Hansard will show that he has my greatest respect for the quality of the work that he has done in the past—has been selected. My simple question was: are we to hear from the Minister that it will be that kind of appointment? —that is, political, or people with political experience.
The Minister may well say, yes, in which case the question then is begged, will they be Conservative politicians or will they be from other parties? The Minister knows that there will be some argument, particularly among members of my party, as to whether they wish to be considered to be the heads of residuary authorities, and in effect presiding over the demise of these authorities.
It was a question genuinely raised in order that we could be helped. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, not unfairly but unjustly, accuses me of motives which I did not have. I am sure that the Minister will understand why I asked the question.
Lord Elton: At least I will answer it. I attribute no malice to the noble Lord at all in asking this question,
232
but he should know that I can confirm that Ministers have been discussing with Sir Godfrey Taylor the possibility that he might chair the London residuary body. Firm arrangements, however, have not yet been made, and when they are made we shall make an announcement in the normal way. We have made no approaches to individuals in respect of appointments to the metropolitan county residuary bodies, but again we are thinking about possible candidates.
There was a bit of a stir yesterday when people said that we should not have got even to this stage. But noble Lords opposite and their colleagues in another place have doubtless cast their minds back to 1975, when after Commons Second Reading of the Shipbuilding Bill the Labour Government of the day started doing exactly the same thing. I need not rehearse other precedents. There are plenty. The only qualification for the job is that the person shall be suitable and able to do it. That is the criterion that will be applied.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 136C not moved.]
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: With the leave of the Committee may I say that I am in more than a little difficulty. As I understand it, the usual channels have not yet come to a decision on whether we should break at this point. However, judging by the feeling of the mental pressure around me I understand that it is the wish of the Committee that we should do this. I would therefore suggest that we do not return to this business until half past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Rent (Amendment) Bill
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill which was introduced into another place last week by my honourable friend Mr. Michael Mates, MP for Hampshire East. Its purpose is to cure a defect in the Rent Act 1977 which is in the same terms as the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 and of an order in council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
It is a defect which has been brought to light by the decision last November of the Court of Appeal in the case of Pocock v. Steel in which the plaintiff, Mrs. Pocock, was a constituent of Mr. Mates and was the unsuccessful appellant in the appeal and the owner of the house in question. I can put the problem quite shortly and simply. Under Case 11 of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977 and the equivalent provisions in Scotland and Northern Ireland it was thought, when it was enacted by Parliament, that an owner who wished to recover possession of a dwelling (so that he or she or

233
his or her family could return to live in it) could do so so long as certain simple conditions laid down under Case 11 were complied with. The principle condition was the giving of a written notice in advance. If those conditions were complied with it was then mandatory for the court to grant an order for repossession. The courts, therefore, under Case 11 had no discretion as to whether to grant an order. Those of us who were familiar in the courts with these Rent Act cases know that the discretion of the court arose in those cases in which there was a difficult and very tiresome issue of greater hardship—whether it would be greater hardship for the owner if no order was made or greater hardship for the tenant if an order was made.
So many of us were in Parliament at that time, and we must assume that Parliament thought that under Case 11 the court had no discretion and it was mandatory for it to make an order. However, in that case of Pocock v. Steel the Court of Appeal decided otherwise and they held that if the absent owner had made a further letting since first letting the house and having to go away, then Case 11 would not apply. That is what the Court of Appeal held. This unexpected result causes considerable hardship to people who let their homes temporarily while they are away—perhaps overseas on employment in Crown service, in any employment or for business reasons, Service or other reasons which require them to be absent temporarily—or, if not on a temporary basis, for several years, perhaps, but without any intention of surrendering their own home. They may also have left their furniture and other possessions in the dwelling. It may have been a furnished letting. That is the reason for the Bill.
I should explain the terms of the Bill. They look a little technical and, thanks to the Bill being short, they have to be rather technical otherwise we should have had to re-enact provisions that have already been enacted. However, there is no need to do that if the Bill is properly drafted by the textual amendment method, and this Bill is so drafted.
Clause 1 is the operative clause, especially subsections (1), (2) and (3). I should point out that subsection (4) is retrospective. Parliament always leans against retrospective legislation when it operates against the citizen. But frequently in the past Parliament has been willing to make legislation retrospective when it operates, and justly operates, in favour of the citizen who would otherwise be subjected to an injustice. The result is that cases which have already arisen will not, thanks to subsection (4), be adversely affected by the case of Pocock v. Steel.
That is really all I need say at this stage by way of explanation. I have the right to reply to the debate and shall be glad to try to answer any point which any noble Lord may raise. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Renton.)
Lord Denning: My Lords, this little Bill is an important constitutional Bill. Let me tell your Lordships how it arises. There was a lady, Mrs. Pocock, who lived near Petersfield in Hampshire. She wanted to leave her house for a time and to let it furnished, but she wanted to be sure of being able to get it back when she wanted it for herself or for any of
234
her children. The law permits that. The Rent Acts permit it so long as certain requisites are gone through. She gave all the notices and all the necessary requisites. A year or two ago there was a tenant living in the house and Mrs. Pocock wanted it for her son and daughter who were then growing up. She brought proceedings in the county court for possession, relying on all the provisions of this statute being in her favour, but I am afraid the judge refused to give her possession and the Court of Appeal approved and affirmed that position. Mrs. Pocock therefore left the court without getting her cottage and having to pay the costs of the tenant who was occupying it. The tenant is one of the citizens affected by this.
It was in November last year that the Court of Appeal gave that decision in Pocock v. Steel. In a way I do not blame them. I remember those Rent Acts from the old days, the obscurity of them and the amount of trouble we had. The judges then were inclined to blame the trouble on the draftsmen and on your Lordships' House. Lord Justice Scrutton said in 1929—I was in the court and heard him:
"I regret that I cannot order costs to be paid by the draftsmen of the Rent Acts and the Members of the legislature who passed them and are responsible for the obscurity of these Acts".
That is what Lord Justice Scrutton said at that time. I know the Court of Appeal made a mistake when Lord Justice McKinnon said:
"Anybody may be forgiven for making a mistake about this chaotic series of Acts, the horrors of which are prematurely hastening many of the judges to an early grave".
That is what we thought of the Acts in 1928 and 1930 when I was dealing with them all.
I am afraid that history is repeating itself in this case. I fear I must say that I think the Court of Appeal in this case got it wrong, because all depended on little words in the original Act of 1965, that the landlord could get possession if he has occupied the house and let it. Simple words applied also to Mrs. Pocock. She has occupied it and had let it. Then, not in a new Act but in a consolidating Act to make it, as the draftsmen thought, a little easier, they missed out the word "has". Instead of saying "who has occupied", they said, "who occupied". Instead of saying, "who has let", they said, "who let". In a consolidation Act I should have thought that none of us would think that there was any difference at all. I am afraid that the Court of Appeal said that there was a difference and the words in the consolidation Act were said to be clear and to overrule the meaning which had been given in the original Act of 1965.
I fear that in my view the Court of Appeal were wrong. They ought to have gone by the purpose of the legislation and not by the mere literal words of it, on the meaning, on the word "has" being brought in or not. As in an earlier debate this afternoon, how glad I was to hear the Lord Chancellor say that the court should now give a purposive interpretation of the Act and not go by the literal words, following my noble friend Lord Renton's excellent report. That is where the Court of Appeal went wrong.
But is it for me, is it for us, to say that the Court of Appeal were wrong? There is the constitutional point. That case was not appealed to the House of Lords. What this Bill says changes the law. It reverses the case of Pocock v. Steel and says that Mrs. Pocock, if only

235
the Court of Appeal had been right, could have got possession. And there it is. It is not only doing that, it is making it retrospective. That is subsection (4). That is the constitutional change. It is making it retrospective so that the law is changed. If a person such as Mrs. Pocock brought an action in the courts now, after this Bill, she would get possession, even though the matter had taken place weeks and months before it was psssed.
It is making it retrospective. That is the important point in this Bill. My noble friend said, "Oh well, we do allow retrospective legislation when it affects the private citizen". Does it not affect the tenant here, the tenant who is being turned out? So it is really, to my mind, a new and important point of retrospective legislation which, for myself, I am glad to see. But I should also like to see this. Could not Mrs. Pocock now in some way get that tenant out? The case was decided against her. I think that the only way that I can see that it could be done is by her applying for leave to appeal to the House of Lords, out of time, or getting leave to go, and getting the position reversed. Then she would not have to pay those costs.
At all events, my Lords, there it is. I am saying all this just to show that we are on an important constitutional point. I wholly welcome the Bill. It is putting the law right. It is changing the law where the Court of Appeal went wrong; and a very good thing that their Lordships should do it. But it is a new thing. It is a new thing, but I am very glad that it is being done.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to give an unqualified welcome to and an appreciation and acceptance of the decision of the Government, who clearly were seized of the arguments that had been advanced in regard to this matter. I believe that they also appreciated the sense of injustice that pervaded the whole situation. I look the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in the eye (in my phrase) and he will appreciate, as I do, how very lucky we are in this House at this moment to have more time than was available in the other place last Friday. I spent a great deal of my time in the other place as a "Friday man" and I know how very rarely this kind of procedure was tolerated by a Government of any colour and by the Whips of either side. There was a natural reticence to allow things to go through literally "on the nod" at all stages. I have read the very short comment and the quite proper remarks of the Speaker drawing the attention of the House to the desire on the part of all parties to make the maximum speed. That is why it literally went through at break-neck speed last Friday.
I think the House is indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, because there will be people outside this place who will be delighted by the decision but who nevertheless will also want to hear the exposition and the arguments backwards and forwards which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave and, finally, without any qualification the indication that this was a proper thing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, used the word "purpose"—the interpretation of the purpose. I had already jotted down the phrase "true intention".
236
There may be a difference semantically, but I gathered that what the Minister and his advisers had sought to get the House to agree to and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and a great many other people had been seized of was the original purpose or true intention.
I am only sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is not here because it is only three weeks ago since she raised this very matter here in this House as a Question, and I had the opportunity of drawing the attention of your Lordships to the matter. I can simply say that a good friend of mine, Mrs. Gladys Bunn, who is the principal of an estate agents in Haywards Heath, drew my attention to this question and to the agitation in the area of Haywards Heath because I did not know the quantity—whether they were in tens, hundreds or thousands—of the properties in this category. When she sent me a note of the position she enclosed correspondence from the National Association of Estate Agents. There is no doubt at all from what she told me that this decision, the impact and import of the Bill, will be seen as providing enormous relief and clarifying what had been the past position. The retrospective aspect of it—16th November—is very important indeed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord who introduced the Bill quite fairly drew attention not to the uniqueness but to the rarity of Parliament actually taking retrospective action of this kind.
I think that the Member for Hampshire, East is to be commended on his diligence. I believe that he has recognised that if he had not a cause célèbre, he had a very good wicket on which to bat. He has pursued it with vigour and, at the end of the day, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has dissected and analysed the Bill in parts. I have read it, of course, and it substantially means that the uncertainty and perhaps its effect on the availability of accommodation will not be there in the future in the way it would have been had the ability of the returning landlord to gain possession remained in as much doubt as it was after the decision referred to.
All told, my Lords, I believe that Parliament has acted very wisely. I congratulate the Minister who wrote to me and said clearly that he wanted to put the matter right. He has put it right at the earliest possible moment and I believe that the honourable Member for Hampshire, East deserves our congratulations on co-ordinating matters and demonstrating that his concern for his constituent and many others deserved to be redressed. From this side of the House I certainly give this Bill an unqualified acceptance.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government warmly welcome this Bill which has been so fully, and, may I say, briefly, described by my noble friend Lord Renton. This matter first came to the attention of the House by means of a Starred Question from my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes which I was privileged to answer. I promised then on behalf of the Government urgent action to correct a situation which I said at the time (at col. 474 of the Official Report of 3rd May) has arisen because the Court of Appeal has

237
overturned the widely accepted view of the effect of Case 11 of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977.
Speaking on behalf of the official Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, agreed with me at that stage, and obviously he still does from the speech which he has just delivered to the House. I do not know whether the Court of Appeal got it wrong, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, but I feel in any event that it would be presumptuous of me in the extreme to comment on that particular aspect of the matter. However, my noble friend Lord Renton's object is to put this matter beyond any doubt, whether in the legal or common sense or anything else, if, saving the face of the noble and learned Lord, I might distinguish between the two adjectives. The noble and learned Lord, from his speech, is obviously convinced that this Bill does precisely that, and of course so am I.
My Lords, today's proceedings, in regard to which Standing Orders have been suspended, are a reflection of the urgency of this matter and I am very pleased that the House agreed to this course earlier today. I therefore thank the House in advance for its co-operation in correcting an anomalous situation, both prospectively and in respect of existing lettings.
I am advised that the element of the Bill which applies retrospectively to existing tenancies is not truly retrospective in the accepted sense of that word, in that the tenants who were given increased rights by Pocock v. Steel and will now have them withdrawn—and this is the important part of what I have to say—never thought that they would have those rights when they accepted the tenancy. I hope that is clear to somebody. My Lords, I fully expect that, if your Lordships pass the Bill today, Royal Assent will not be long delayed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I would like to thank those noble Lords who have spoken and who have supported this Bill. So far as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is concerned, I would remind your Lordships that his decisions so often corrected the statute law by filling gaps in it in ways which enabled justice to be done and to be seen to be done. We remember in particular his establishing the innocent wife's right to remain in the matrimonial home. That was an example which Parliament eventually followed—rather the reverse of the present situation. I am glad that he referred to purposive interpretation and that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor did so earlier today. It is not for me to say whether such an interpretation would necessarily have resulted in a different decision in this case, but certainly "purposive intention", or, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, so aptly put it, deciding cases in accordance with the true intention of Parliament is what purposive intention is, and I am grateful for the translation of it which the noble Lord has given me.
My noble and learned friend Lord Denning suggested that Mrs. Pocock might not get the benefit of this Bill, but I suggest, with deep respect and polite hesitation, that she will get the benefit of the retrospective provision in Clause 1(4), because it applies to all cases prior to the Bill, and Mrs. Pocock is not made an exception in the enactment of that clause. So if she finds that she has to take further
238
proceedings in court—but I would very much hope that the parties would be reasonable and that she would not have to do so—then she could pray in aid the provisions in subsection (4). That is how I see the matter.
Lord Denning: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, perhaps I may say that there is a judgment of the Court of Appeal against Mrs. Pocock and in favour of the tenant. I do not know, unless it is specifically done by this House or by the Bill, that that judgment can be reversed just like that. Therefore, although I have some hesitation, Mrs. Pocock would have to do it by fresh proceedings, or something, or, as I should like it to happen, by agreement, whereby she could get possession now, reverse the order for costs and get costs. But I am not sure that that ought not to be done specifically by this House legislatively, or by an intermediate appeal to the House of Lords. I expect it will all go through by agreement, because if the House of Lords did hear the appeal they would of course apply the present Act and reverse the decision. I only hope that in some way or other Mrs. Pocock will get the decision of the Court of Appeal reversed and get the order for costs in her favour, and not have to pay costs; but the Act does not do it expressly.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in drawing attention to the fact that express words in the statute are needed to overrule the common law or the decision of the courts, but in my respectful submission the terms of subsection (4) of Clause 1 are express. They are abundantly plain for all to see; and where there is that conflict between a recent decision of the court and a recent statute, I would have thought it is beyond doubt that the statute must prevail. However, we must leave that for events to follow.
I am so glad that the question raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, and I am sure she will be pleased at the prompt action which has been taken.
May I say in conclusion that the passage of this short, necessary Bill through both Houses of Parliament in eight days shows that Parliament, with the aid of Whitehall, can be both efficient and expeditious when necessary. It is unusual for a Private Member's Bill to get through both Houses so very quickly. May I say how grateful I am and how satisfying it is to know that the law can be so quickly and well corrected in a matter which is essentially a human problem.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Motor-Cycle Crash-Helmets (Restriction of Liability) Bill
7.58 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

239
This Bill is of a non-political nature, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is also non-controversial. The Bill relieves from criminal liability the rider or passenger on a motor-cycle for the failure of the other to wear a crash-helmet. It will mean that the rider of a motor-cycle cannot be charged or convicted of aiding and abetting his passenger if the passenger is not wearing a crash-helmet. This would bring motor-cycling into line with the car seat-belt legislation which was passed in 1981.
This legislation stipulates that drivers of cars, although liable to themselves, are not liable if their passengers do not wear a belt. It is fair and just that motor-cyclists should be treated in the same manner. If the Bill is enacted it will still be an offence for anyone to ride on a motor-cycle without a helmet, though passengers in a sidecar are not required by law to wear a helmet. It would be quite feasible for a pillion passenger to remove his or her helmet when the motor-cycle is at rest, or even when it is on the move, without the knowledge of the rider, and to attach it over an arm. So it would be wrong for the rider to be blamed should that happen.
I am very much aware of the dangers affecting very young people who may not understand the helmet regulations. It is right and proper that the rider should be responsible for the safety of such people and be liable in law should they not be wearing a helmet. The Bill puts at 16 the age at which the pillion passenger becomes responsible for his own liability. This is the age when it becomes legal to ride a moped. The rider would certainly know that the helmet must be worn. Sixteen is also the age at common law when parental rights come to an end.
The front seat passenger in a car has a seat belt provided and it could be argued that a motor-cyclist should carry a spare helmet. Some motor-cycles have provision for carrying a helmet, but many do not; and in any case it is almost as dangerous to wear an ill-fitting helmet as it would be not to wear a helmet at all. If the crash-helmet fits well and the strap is done up correctly, it should not be possible to dislodge the helmet forwards, even applying considerable force.
Everyone is concerned at the high accident rate among motor-cyclists. I have always supported motor-cycle training, although I do not agree with all aspects of the present legislation concerning the two-part test. Training teaches the skills of riding motor-cycles safely, but once the test has been passed human nature takes over and most casualties occur in the 16 to 19 age bracket. Those young people are tempted to show how much faster they can ride than their friends or how superior their bike is compared with others, before they have had time to understand road surfaces and to gain general motoring experience.
I have been riding motor-cycles for 45 years and have learned to ride defensively, while still enjoying the freedom from traffic and parking problems which only motor-cycling brings. Experienced motor-cyclists will never ride close to the edge of the road but will ride nearer the centre where they can be seen by drivers emerging from side roads; also, they will never ride in the blind rear quarter of a car, because the driver will not see them. I could continue, but that would not be relevant to the Bill.
240
However, it is relevant that although the majority of accidents occur to solo motor-cyclists, in 1983, 75 pillion passengers died. Should this Bill pass through your Lordships' House, I hope that publicity may be given in motor-cycle training schools to the laws relating to the wearing of crash-helmets, and in particular to the fact that the rider will be legally required to see that a pillion passenger under 16 years of age wears a helmet.
This Bill makes the position of motor-cycle riders the same as that of car drivers under the seat belt law, which seems to me to be sensible. I therefore commend this Bill to your Lordships and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Strathcarron.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think this is a Bill that we are all anxious to have on the statute book and I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, for agreeing to aid his honourable friend in another place by introducing this Bill into your Lordships' House and moving its Second Reading today. From my knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and from what he has said, few people are better qualified to give an opinion on the desirability of the wearing of crash-helmets by motor-cyclists and pillion riders. In fact, the noble Lord was quite specific about the importance of the riders themselves, as well as their pillion passengers, wearing a properly fitting helmet.
I am sure that the noble Lord's wide experience will be appreciated by those who drive motor-cycles and that they will appreciate his insistence on his recommendation that helmets should be well fitting and properly fitted. There is no doubt that the injury rate in respect of motor-cyclists is extremely high, with roughly 1,000 killed and 20,000 seriously injured every year. Those are fearsome figures, but I am afraid there is no way of stopping people from riding motor-cycles, even if we wanted to do so. As the noble Lord says, it gives a great sense of freedom to ride a motor-cycle and certainly it is something that most young persons would like to do—and particularly young men, if it is permissible to say that these days. They like the idea of owning a motor-cycle and the thrill they get from it.
I was pleased that the Minister and the Committee in another place gave the assurance that the Bill will in no way impede the enforcement of safety helmets legislation. This Bill represents an addition to that legislation. As the noble Lord says, it is asking that the owner or driver of a motor-cycle takes the responsibility for anyone under 16 years of age who takes a pillion ride from him. This can be a defence of young people, in the atmosphere of a group of motor-cyclists themselves, because the motor-cyclist can say, "I would love to take you, but in the absence of your having a proper helmet I am not able to take you". I think that the wheedling way of 14- and 15-year-olds with their slightly older brothers or friends can be very difficult to resist, and for that reason alone I think this Bill is very worthwhile.
It is also worthwhile for many other reasons, particularly the fact that there is no question that wearing a helmet is a great help to safety and may avert

241
injuries. In the Committee in another place there were suggestions that injuries could be avoided if a helmet was worn. Because of the extra safety provided by the helmet, many head injuries were avoided, including head injuries that could have been consequential upon other injuries—even a broken neck. There is no doubt that a properly fitted helmet is a great help.
I should like to make one further point on the general question of motor-cyclists in traffic. That was also referred to in the Committee in another place. I am sure that all of us who have recently been driving in London, especially in the last couple of years, have frequently been given rather a start by seeing motor-cyclists weaving in and out of the traffic. I am sure that the motor-cyclists who do this are very capable people but in some cases—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, when he speaks again, will make some comment on this—the weaving in and out by the motor-cyclists causes distraction to car drivers, particularly in traffic which is moving intermittently; and it could cause drivers to be involved in accidents.
I think this is something that could be included in the training of motor-cyclists. It should be stressed that they as well as the car driver have a responsibility, though I agree that the car driver is in a much more stable position and has the greater responsibility. He should be encouraged to look out for the motor-cycle and the motor-cyclist should be encouraged to be careful. However, I welcome the Bill. I think we all welcome anything that will give additional safety to anyone on the road and particularly to young people using motor-cycles. I commend the Bill to the House and hope that it gets an uninterrupted passage.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers, but I should like to take a couple of moments of your Lordships' time. I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this measure into the House. It had a fairly easy passage in another place. I am glad to see that they got the age group right, thanks to our friends the RAC. I think that in some of the proposals the age of 21 or 14 was wrong. I think 16 is right.
I think this is a very good measure and if we can protect the head, so much the better, because the head is the most vulnerable part.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathcarron on introducing this Bill. We are fortunate in this House in having his long experience of riding motor-cycles. I do not know whether he came to your Lordships' House this evening on his motor-cycle; he certainly came to my office on it the other morning.
I can say that the Bill has the full support of the Government. Successive Governments have considered that wearing a safety helmet must be required as a matter of law as an essential aid to road safety—a view which the Government wholeheartedly endorse. Nevertheless I fully support my noble friend's argument that there is no good reason why the helmet law should include a facility for bringing aiding and abetting charges against a rider whose pillion passenger fails to wear a helmet. As my noble friend has explained, the only exception is where the offender
242
is a child under 16 years of age—a situation which the Bill takes into account. Otherwise, I consider it entirely right that only the person actually committing the helmet offence should be prosecuted for it. This is broadly the position of drivers under the seat belt law and there is no reason why motor-cyclists should be in any different position in respect of safety helmets. I therefore welcome this Bill. It will remove an unnecessary and anomalous feature of the law which is in no way essential to the effective enforcement of the law or to the promotion of road safety, and it will be welcomed by motor-cyclists.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, mentioned motor-cycles weaving in and out and frightening everybody. I do so agree with him. I think they are mostly despatch riders and, what is worse, they have blaring radios as well, and often they ride worn out motor cycles emitting clouds of blue smoke. They are rather anti-social, and, though I have been a supporter of motor cyclists all my life, there are ways and means of getting to the front of the traffic quite quietly, without frightening everybody.
My noble friend Lord Brougham mentioned the age of 16 being suitable. I am very pleased that he believes that to be the correct age. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara for his support for the Bill and the help he has given me.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until half past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 8.30 p.m.]

Local Government Bill
House again in Committee.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 136D:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Strategic plan by residuary body.
. The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the London Residuary Body and each metropolitan county residuary body to have the function of preparing and from time to time reviewing a strategic plan for Greater London or the metropolitan county, as the case may be, which shall set out general policies for the use and development of land.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is concerned with planning. I told the Minister that my noble friend Lady Stedman and I would be moving this amendment and that it is more in the nature of a probing amendment. So, as a result, we are hoping to get a lot of information from the Government.
This is the second time that town planning has been debated in this Committee. However, the first debate came rather in the backwash of the amendment to set up new elected metropolitan authorities, and I think that the ensuing excitement and victory on the one

243
hand, and the distress by four votes on the other, rather took the edge off the planning amendment and I do not think it received the attention it deserved from the Committee generally. Therefore we felt that the Government's intentions deserved much deeper exploration.
Despite everything that has been said, this is still a very confused subject. Let us look at this new system which is proposed for London and the metropolitan counties after 1986, which is the whole core of what we are trying to find out. The Bill does two things. First, it abolishes the metropolitan county planning authorities; and, secondly, it changes the planning system for almost 40 per cent. of the country's population. The present system has existed for 20 years in London and for over 11 years in the metropolitan counties. Over that time, it has been developed and refined, and although no one would claim that it is perfect—far from it—it is a system which is established and effective, and indeed it has been copied by many other countries in the world.
As recently as last year, after a long period of consultation, the Department of the Environment published its Circular 22/84 which advises local authorities how to draw up their structure and local plans. I had intended at this point to wave it at your Lordships, because it really is a thick document. I think that the Minister has a copy and perhaps he will wave it and show your Lordships how thick it is. It is a definitive and weighty document. Yet within two months of its publication in September 1984, the Government set about recasting the whole planning system in our larger cities.
So this is now the situation. Dorset, Cumbria and Norfolk, being shires, will still have a two-tier planning system as outlined in the circular, but we are still in the dark about the precise arrangements for London and our larger cities, which situation creates a lot of problems and a tremendous amount of uncertainty. There is considerable concern not only in this Committee, but also among professional bodies outside. Criticism of the Bill's plans for planning has been expressed on all sides of the Committee since the first day. The noble Lord, Lord Plummer, attacked the proposals vigorously; the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, had strong reservations and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, transmitted the concern of the counties around London about the proposals in the Bill.
If, as I imagine he is, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is to speak on this matter tonight, I hope that he will be able to make the position clearer and plainer to people who are not so well versed in planning law as he is. I often find it so very difficult to follow him, so I assume that he must be right, but perhaps I am not always right about that. On one occasion, I think he said that the Government were two-thirds right, and I tried to fathom out which third they were wrong about.
Certainly the Government's confidence that the Bill's proposals for strategic planning are adequate is, I am afraid, shared by very few. When proposing major constitutional change, which is what this Bill is all about, it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that the new system which they are setting up
244
improves on the old and that we move forward. This must certainly apply in the field of planning, which is a very difficult and complicated one. However, what is proposed at the moment not only is not improving the system, but is making it very much worse. It will be a retrograde step for strategic planning, since it fragments the present arrangements and places undue powers in the hands of the Secretary of State.
The essential weakness of what is proposed lies in the absence of a single statutory plan for each metropolitan area. The amendment seeks to rectify this, by requiring the residuary body in each area to produce a strategic plan. I know the feelings of the Committee about the residuary bodies, and I am not suggesting that this is a catalyst, about which we had a great deal of discussion on the last amendment; but this is the only opportunity left to us at Committee stage to secure the retention of a strategic planning function. That is the important point. By whichever means it is achieved, that is really the objective.
The amendment would result first, in seven strategic plans instead of 69, which of course is counting the boroughs and the districts together. Secondly, the Secretary of State would not be required to produce strategic guidance—I shall return to that in a moment—thus saving his time and his involvement in local matters. The obverse is that it would save local communities having the central hand of the Secretary of State interfering in their affairs.
The bodies which will be involved in land use planning, the 69 district and borough councils, the new waste authorities, the new passenger transport authorities and the various existing and new quangos, will be better co-ordinated. There will also be continuity with the existing system, and the present work being undertaken on structure plan reviews will be carried forward into the new arrangements and not lost, as indeed they will be lost under the Bill as it stands at present.
Finally, the amendment would retain the essential expertise for planning research and data of the existing metropolitan authorities. We have just been discussing an amendment which took in research and I know that the Minister referred frequently to Amendment No. 140A. I shall not pre-empt discussion on that but I really do not think that it provides the necessary or adequate answers.
There are many unanswered questions about the arrangements for planning in this Bill. Chief among these is the mysterious animal called "strategic guidance", which makes only one brief appearance in Schedule 1. I believe that this is the first time it has ever appeared in legislation, although the phrase may have been used in a more informal manner; but there it is in this little paragraph in Schedule 1. Certainly it has been hiding its light under the weight of the Bill.
What this guidance consists of is, I am afraid, still the 64,000 dollar question which I am rather hoping the Minister will be able to answer tonight. What is clear, however, is that the strategic guidance, whatever it may turn out to be, will be the monoploy of the Secretary of State. The guidance may be brief, and I think I am right in saying that the noble Viscount rather hoped it would be—I believe he said so on a previous occasion; if I am wrong, he will no doubt tell me so—in which case I ask: will it be adequate?
The guidance may be detailed—and I think there is a certain amount of feeling against that—in which case, may I ask: are there the resources and skills available now in the Department of the Environment? I rather doubt it, due to the running down of the department and also of its regional offices, which seem strangely empty compared with how they were some years ago when I visited them. It may vary from place to place. Therefore, will this not expose the Minister, the Secretary of State, to charges of unevenness and unfairness? I am certainly not blaming the Minister here for any of this.
If the strategic guidance is to mean anything at all then there are certain criteria which it must fulfil. It must consider the transport network in each conurbation and how it will shape the whole urban area. It must allocate land for waste disposal in one district or borough in order to meet the needs of others. It must ensure a consistent approach for planning river valleys, moorland or similar areas which cross district or borough boundaries. It must make decisions about the fair distribution of shopping areas. It must provide for the correct areas of land for industry or offices. It must preserve a consistent approach to the green belt. It must direct resources to our inner cities. It must balance the needs for minerals against environmental problems. It must provide certainty for the private sector if we are to get the best use of the investment resources available. In other words, it seems to me that what we want are again structure plans. We do not want to see them go. They are what we need and want.
I would remind the Minister that the criteria which I have spelt out are all contentious issues on which people do express and will continue to express strong opinions. If all these issues and many others are to be dealt with adequately, then the guidance will have to be detailed, it will have to be specified and therefore likely to lead to controversy and debate between interested parties. This is perfectly proper and has always gone on. Indeed, the guidance would be of little use if it were not controversial, because the guidance would be asked for only if there were some dispute or something that could not be solved without going to the Secretary of State for his strategic guidance.
However, this in turn means that the Secretary of State will require a team of professionally qualified staff to collect and sift information, analyse options, consider views expressed by third parties and give advice on the form of strategic guidance. But as I have pointed out, the department does not have, and is unlikely to have, sufficient staff in terms of numbers, skills or experience to produce the kind of guidance which will be necessary. After all, we have been told that one of the purposes of the Bill is to cut down on expenditure and to cut down, presumably, on resources, including staff. I think that is set out at the end of the preamble to the Bill. Nor do the planning commission proposed for London or the planning conferences proposed elsewhere really meet the demands that will be put on them. In contrast, we must remember that these are precisely the resources which exist at the moment in the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
I am not arguing for a retention of the GLC as it is or of the metropolitan counties—there are no doubt
246
many ways in which they could all be improved—but what I am very concerned about is that we are moving into a situation where what is proposed will all be very much more inadequate and very much less effective than the planning system is at the moment. It will create a great many problems, and I think it is our job in this Chamber to see how we can not only elucidate what it is that the Government have in mind, but try to improve it and solve some of these knotty problems which are present and just will not go away.
In conclusion, I come back to the need for a strategic plan. Strategic guidance tucked away in Schedule 1 is not sufficient. In truth, arrangements should be made for the other elements of the strategic planning service; but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, said on an earlier amendment on the third day of the Committee stage. I am proposing this amendment as an exercise in damage limitation. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman: I should like to support this amendment which has been moved so ably by the noble Baroness.
Lord Elton: I am left in some doubt by the noble Baroness, who had led me earlier to suppose that this was a probing amendment. She addressed it as a probing amendment to start with but, as she became wound up towards the end, it became clearer and clearer that she really thought that it was a great improvement on the Bill.
Baroness Birk: I do.
Lord Elton: Oh, the noble Baroness does. I should just like to know, that is all. I do not agree with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk: It is an improvement on the Bill. I am not misleading the Minister. I am not going to press it to a Division, but as I think that most things would be an improvement on the Bill, it would be awfully difficult for me to speak about the Bill without saying something improving.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness took elegant advantage of the opportunity I gave her, but I understand what she means.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: In supporting this amendment, perhaps I may also say that it is only a probing amendment at this stage and we do not propose to divide the House. With my noble friend Lord Esher, I put down a series of amendments to Clause 3 earlier in the Committee stage. We listened carefully to the Minister's reply before we withdrew them to decide what we would do on Report. This amendment is really designed to elicit more information from the Government to help us to make that decision. I hope the Minister will accept that we are genuinely worried about the planning situation after abolition.
I see a very real need for co-ordination between the various public bodies which are involved in the development and the use of land in London and in the metropolitan counties. As it now stands, the Bill allows the districts or borough councils, the passenger

247
transport authorities, the waste disposal authorities and the Historic Buildings Commission all to make important decisions about the use of land. How will this be co-ordinated? Is this what the strategic guidance will attempt to do?
When the strategic planning authorities were set up following the earlier reorganisations, it was understood that one of their most important functions would be the co-ordination of land use and transport decisions, that they would try to ensure that roads would be planned to avoid wholesale upheaval of people in their homes and established communities, and that new buildings and areas would be located convenient to the local traffic and public transport routes and vice versa. What will happen in the future? Will it all be left to voluntary co-operation; or is the Minister thinking of some kind of adequate mechanism which will ensure that these relationships are kept in the future?
Is he satisfied that the district and the borough councils will readily agree voluntarily about the priorities for road building and that they will readily agree with the waste disposal authority about the need for and the location of waste disposal sites? Is the Minister quite sure that the good sense of local authorities will lead them to put aside their own often legitimate forms of local anxieties to achieve that sort of co-operation over the area as a whole? Or does it really mean that the Minister will be drawn more and more into local disputes which are outside his normal remit?
I believe that the Minister is in danger of being drawn into local disputes over the competing uses of land. If so, how will he reconcile his position as an independent arbiter on plans and planning appeals and as the person responsible for drawing up the strategic guidance on which the new planning system will be founded? At the moment, as I understand it, the Minister issues guidance either by nationwide circulars or on a regional basis. This guidance is of a general nature and is not pre-empting any of the policy decisions.
The strategic decisions at county level are at the moment left to the county councils. In future, that guidance will have to be given for counties and perhaps for their immediate surroundings. That guidance will need to be much more locally orientated and to tackle the potentially controversial problems of where investment should be encouraged and where it should be restrained. This means, if the Secretary of State takes his new responsibilities seriously, he must be involved in local issues at the formative stage of policy making. How, then, can he sit in judgment over disagreements between the planning authorities themselves and among the planning authorities, the landowners and the developers? Having set the policies himself, how can he hope to be seen as an impartial judge able to settle the disputes?
I believe the Minister has a very important national role, and he should not become occupied with local matters. That is what I feel will happen when he has no county council, or its equivalent, to act as a capable intermediary between himself and the local planning authorities.
248
At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Molson, raised the need to examine strategic guidance in a proper manner. If strategic guidance is to mean anything at all it must be open to challenge so that it can be tested and eventually accepted by those who have to follow it, or even by those who may be directly affected by it. Would it not be possible to subject the guidance for London and the metropolitan counties to some kind of inquiry, or examination, before it is finally issued to the local planning authorities? Am I right in thinking that it seems likely that the examination of guidance will have to await the preparation of Part I of the first unitary plan in each area?
Let us assume that the strategic guidance can be altered after the examination of an emerging unitary plan. What will happen if it remains unaltered after the examination of, perhaps, the first four unitary plans in an area but that it is still found wanting at the fifth examination? Let us assume that that guidance is then altered as a consequence. What is the consequence for the four earlier plans that were within the guidance? Will they have to be revised? In a similar manner, if the strategic guidance can be altered after examination, should the production of all the unitary plans in a county be halted whenever one of them is subject to examination in case the strategic context or guidance has to be changed again? That would surely be quite intolerable, and it strongly suggests to me that guidance ought to be produced and examined for the county as a whole in one process.
All in all, the situation will be a difficult one for the Minister. It is a situation which will introduce great complexity and confusion in the process. The sensible way to cut through all this would be to have a single authority in each county responsible for drawing up, issuing and reviewing a straightforward strategic plan. But will it be acceptable to landowners and to other interested bodies to have to wait for an examination in public into a unitary plan before they can challenge the Secretary of State's strategic guidance in an independent forum?
The strategic guidance that is to be issued by the Minister may suggest land release in very broad terms in a particularly sensitive area. Although interested bodies can make representations to the Minister, they are wholly dependent on the Minister's judgment of the rights and wrongs of the matter. There is no independent hearing for their case at this stage and there is no appeal against the Minister's decision. This must wait, we presume, until the examination of the local authority's unitary plan, which relies on that same ministerial guidance. Unless the Minister decides to call in Part I of that unitary plan for separate examination, anyone concerned could have to wait a very long time for the detailed preparation of the entire unitary plan before he could even start to challenge the underlying assumptions or guidance. This could mean waiting one or two years, and perhaps even longer, during which time the uncertainty over what is proposed will linger on, with all the debilitating effects of blight this can have on landowners and others.
That is the kind of delay and uncertainty which flows from the complexity of the proposed system. Surely it would be better to have the guidance properly

249
examined as a whole at the time that it is to be issued. That would not only be fairer, but it would give some legitimacy to its content. It would also smooth the way for unitary plan production. We need answers and clarification on these points, and we need to be assured that the proposed planning arrangements will be an improvement on the present ones.
Baroness Vickers: I should like to say a few words on this subject, and in particular to deal with minerals. Minerals play a very important part in our national life. They are required for the erection of buildings and for new roads, and some for use in manufacturing industry. It is, therefore, essential that adequate supplies are made available to satisfy the national need.
Minerals can be worked only from where they exist in the ground. Therefore, it is essential that not only should there be proper planning of their development and of their use, but also that these factors should relate to those concerning the protection of the environment. Some years ago regional aggregates working parties were set up covering England and Wales. These working parties consist of representatives from the minerals industry and the county planning authorities. Their duties are to prepare overall regional guidelines as to the amount of land required for mineral extraction within their region, and for this information then to be broken down to the county level. The regional working parties reflect the national guidelines, which have been endorsed by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
This method of co-operation has been found to be successful so far as the minerals industry and the county planning authorities are concerned. It has been a successful story of co-ordination to ensure that adequate provision for future workings has been prescribed at the county level.
The proposals contained in the Bill are to fragment the minerals planning authorities, which are the county councils in the metropolitan areas, and in future minerals planning will be undertaken by borough or district councils in their areas. This will be unsatisfactory in that at this level of local government there will be an insufficient breadth of responsibility to take full account of strategic considerations in relation to the supply and demand of minerals. At the district level it is expected that the councils will see their role as protecting local interests. Political pressures are likely to weigh heavily on council members, who will be too close to the problems which arise in relation to minerals developments, and the chances of the overall approach to the regional guidelines on a county-wide cohesive plan will not follow.
The need for overall planning at county level is fundamental if the minerals industry is to be given a proper opportunity of developing to meet the needs of the country. Furthermore, technical expertise to deal with minerals planning is unlikely to be available, and the present county teams of experts which have been built up over a number of years will be broken up.
In the last decade the Government commissioned two reports to deal with minerals planning—Stevens and Verney. Both of these reports said that minerals
250
planning should be carried out at the county level, and the Government, together with the previous Administration, agreed with the contents of those reports dealing with this matter. I should like to know what has changed. So far as the minerals industry is concerned it clearly wishes to see an overall view taken in respect of its activities; and from the planning authority's point of view it is only possible to achieve this in the long term if they are prepared on a wider basis than the district council areas and with the proper technical expertise.
9 p.m.
In the debate in the House of Commons on this Bill Sir George Young, speaking for the Government, said:
"I accept that it will be necessary for some authorities to operate within a wider overall framework depending on the minerals in their areas".
It is essential that all authorities operate within a wider overall framework. This framework exists at the present time through the regional aggregates working parties and the present county councils which in the area of which I am speaking are seven in number and are the mineral planning authorities.
If there is to be continuing and satisfactory minerals planning in England and in the metropolitan areas in particular, it is essential that the work of deciding planning applications for minerals development, together with the planning of the release of future minerals resources, should take place at county level, and the proposals put forward by the three chartered institutes, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Institute of British Architects, should be supported. They have all supported what I am now saying, and I shall say no more about their documents, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give me a satisfactory answer.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I think that by her choice of the subject of mineral planning my noble friend Lady Vickers has perhaps illustrated rather well the way in which we should be looking at this question. Perhaps in order to simplify matters, I may confine myself to the question of sand and gravel aggregates, because this is perhaps a slightly easier subject and one which may be familiar to a number of Members of the Committee.
Perhaps I may come back to that in a moment and first address some of the rather more general points that the two noble Baronesses opposite have made. I would suspect—I do not know what my noble friend will say about this—that they have painted a very black picture and one which draws extensively upon the worst possible case. I think, moreover, with the greatest respect to them—and both noble Baronesses are very experienced in central and local government—that they have perhaps failed to appreciate what has been going on in the field of planning since effectively it was invented, or at any rate perhaps perfected, by the party opposite as a result of a good deal of homework by all parties and came to fruition in the 1947 Act.

251
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, must, I think, differentiate between the positive planning function of preparing development plans, to use a very broad word, and the negative function of implementing planning control within the confines of those plans afterwards. It is no use saying that it is impossible for the Secretary of State to be involved in the preparation of positive plans because he is going to have to act as the court of appeal on the negative planning issues on purely local matters at the stage when a planning application has been submitted and has been refused, called in or failed to be resolved. One must not confuse those two issues, because it has been inherent that there are those two functions ever since the beginning, and there has not been proved to be any discrepancy between the two roles that the Secretary of State has in that respect.
Let us therefore concentrate on what I think the amendment is directed to, which is the positive planning function. Let us take just a glimpse into history. When this was first introduced the development plans that were produced for the positive planning purposes were extremely elaborate Ordnance Survey-based documents, the inquiries into which took months and months and were enormously elaborate to the extent that every square inch of the countryside was looked at and ultimately decided upon in some particularly contentious areas. The party opposite in 1968 decided that that was so laborious a process that not only was it in itself unproductive but it had led to such colossal delays that the strategic side of it must be simplified and turned into what we now know as the structure plan.
Going back to the role of the Secretary of State, according to my recollection, when this process began, although it must have been apparent to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that it had to do something to co-ordinate the various county or county borough development plans as they came forward, they came forward at a slow and inconsistent rate. I do not remember in the early days anything particular being issued by way of guidance for larger areas. It started to come in the shape of circulars such as the one on green belts in 1955 when the concept which obviously comprised an area much bigger than any of the individual planning authorities began to be put forward and eventually became implemented by virtue of amendments to development plans. But when it came to structure plans in the 1970s and more recently the whole idea developed very much more rapidly, and my noble friend Lord Sandford knows all about this.
It has been abundantly plain that, whether organised as a group of county boroughs—and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, can tell me how many county boroughs there were in the West Midlands County Council; I think probably 10 or 11 at the end of the day after Solihull had been added—or whether done in the form of the Greater London Council and the surrounding home counties, or in any other shape or form, there was a tier of strategic planning which exceeded the limits of any of the individual local authorities, and it is bound to be so.
252
The result of that was that when one looked—let us perhaps stay with the West Midlands for the moment—at either a group of county borough development plans in the West Midlands or the West Midlands metropolitan county council structure plan later on, there was no way in which one could avoid looking at what was going to happen in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire and any other immediately adjoining county—I cannot think of another one at the moment, but perhaps Shropshire can be added—which might be affected. Therefore at the stage of dealing with major issues of strategy—for instance, the green belt which inevitably goes outside the areas of urban authorities, whether they be county councils or any other sort of local authority—you got on to a scale which exceeded the areas of any one of those.
It is very true that the guidance which has been given by the Department of the Environment on regional planning, whether it is in the South-East, the West Midlands or anywhere else, has been very general in its concept. Nevertheless, it has set the pattern on exactly the sort of thing which the noble Baronesses opposite have mentioned; for instance, transport, the requirement for a sufficient stock of housing land, opportunities to bring in employment, the green belt and other matters of that sort which have been of a general regional nature. This has been prepared hitherto not by diktat of the department, as I understand it, but by a series of consultations in which all the local authorities concerned, and not just the metropolitan councils, the GLC or whatever it may be, have been involved. Indeed, in the South-East it has been formalised to some extent under SERPLAN, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Sandford. However, that is a very much larger concept than just the GLC.
We then come to the point made by the noble Baroness, that if the Secretary of State is going to be involved in this supra-local-authority exercise which co-ordinates a policy for an entire region, he may find himself, at some stage or another, with a Part I of a unitary plan or, for all I know, a revision of a structure plan by a county council outside one of the metropolitan areas which does not necessarily conform to the propositions that he has put forward. Does that matter?
I have to remind noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite that there are other issues of this kind where the Government put forward a proposition on their own account, and where they are ultimately the confirming authority and where they have to take part in public inquiries and where nowadays, fortunately, they have to come along and make their case pretty strongly in the form of evidence by a senior official of the department. I think I need mention only two examples. One is a centre line order for a major trunk road, or a special road such as a motorway, where the whole matter is prepared and ultimately confirmed by the Department of Transport. These are well-known forms of inquiry. They have been refined very greatly. Nevertheless, the basic proposition is that it is the department which initiates the matter, the department which ultimately confirms it and the department

253
which is there at the inquiry, trying to justify what it has said is its preferred choice.
An even more stark example occurs. It has not occurred very recently but I remember a number of such examples. It is when the Department of the Environment, as it now is, designates an area for a new town. That is wholly a matter for the Secretary of State. It is for him to confirm or not to confirm, as he thinks fit. Nevertheless, the statutory procedure, which dates back to the legislation of the party opposite and has not really been altered very much since, has been made to work perfectly well. What happens is that, at the inquiry into the draft designation order, a senior official of the department has to go to the public inquiry and justify his case. He is asked a number of questions. He may have rather a rough time. Sometimes the result of it all is that for one reason or another the designation order is not confirmed and there is either no new town or no extension to the new town.
There is nothing new about this. This has all been going on perfectly well since the war. It may be a delicate British balance. It may be a constitutional oddity for the rest of the world. However, in central and local government in this country we are very familiar with it.
I think that is all that is being put forward in this Bill, perhaps with one exception. I said that we needed to look at history. Very well; we reached the stage of the structure plans. However, now, except I think in West Yorkshire, there are confirmed, and in some cases I think reviewed, structure plans for all the metropolitan counties. I hear utterings that suggest not all. At any rate there are a very large number of them. It is most unlikely that regional policies will be such as to require major upheavals in those structure plans when they come to be reviewed.
The new unitary plan authorities which appear under this Bill will take over the broad and confirmed structure, so far as it relates to their area, of the previous structure plan. All they will have to do is to review it. There may be issues which are new and which require a good deal of consultation. However, I do not see that they will be so fantastically difficult or novel that they should frustrate the entire process of a review of the plan within the broad boundaries of what has previously been decided upon in the confirmed structure plan that exists.
If there are new issues that come along, then, as I believe the situation to be, there will be wide consultation at a stage before the strategic guidance is prepared. The Department of the Environment will not suddenly emerge from a cloud with a tablet upon which is written the strategic guidance. It will have had a great number of consultations with all the local authorities before that stage is reached. For all I know—and I believe this happens now—there will be an opportunity for anybody who so wishes to comment upon drafts of it. Thus, when it appears, it will not be wholly unaltered from the original ideas because it will have been the recipient of a good deal of consultation and possibly change as a result.
254
Thus I do not understand why it is that this is all going to be difficult. There may be technical problems about the co-ordination of Part I of the unitary plan. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on that. But it will be possible, I believe, for this to be foreseen from afar because the consultations must have thrown up some indication that there is going to be a difficulty in a particular area. If there is a Part I of a unitary development plan where the local authority decides that it will go in the teeth of the strategic guidance, I do not necessarily see any harm arising. It will be an occasion when the department has to justify what it has agreed with everyone else. It may, or may not, succeed in doing so at the examination in public. This issue, no doubt, is one that will be chosen for examination in public.
I believe, however, that having got to where we are, with a system evolving in the way that it has, and with the whole concept of strategic guidance already firmly built into it, we can take this in and incorporate it into the unitary plan concept and into the methods of preparing it in a way that will not only not be slower but, I strongly suspect, will be quicker than it has been done hitherto.
My noble friend will correct me to the extent that I am wrong, if I have got anything right at all, but I hope that this time I have succeeded in explaining the matter as I, at least, see it to those who did not understand me last time. I also hope that I have explained why I envisage that it will work.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to make two short points. All noble Lords must be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who have raised some important questions. These will no doubt require considerable consideration before definitive answers can be given to many of them. The substance of the amendment—I realise that it is a probing amendment and I raise this purely in a irenic spirit—is open to objection because the argument in support assumes a permanent retention of the residuary bodies. Secondly, the mandatory duty to set out general policies for use and development of land is inconsistent with only giving guidance if asked, which was the way the argument was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It transcends what is requisite for co-ordination and is therefore an unnecessary interference with the devolved power.
The aspect of co-ordination, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, spoke, is common ground. On any showing this warrants serious attention. As I understand it—I am open to correction if I am wrong—my noble friend Lord Elton specifically undertook, in relation to Amendment No. 19, to give serious consideration to this aspect of the matter, saying in terms that it could be pursued with some profit.
Lord Sandford: I can perhaps mention in that connection that my noble friend on the Front Bench and I are meeting tomorrow to pursue Amendment No. 19. As soon as we have done so, I have it in mind

255
to send a letter to those Members of the Committee who have been taking an interest in strategic planning with a copy of the draft regional guidance that has been prepared by SERPLAN and now out for consultation among the member authorities. This means, I hope, that when we reach Report stage all of us will have had a look at a sample of the kind of thing we are talking about.
I should like to confirm what my noble friend Lord Colville has said. When Members of the Committee see the document and know that the 12 home counties, which are the structure plan authorities outside London, and the 98 district councils in the home counties, which are the development plan authorities, can participate quite conveniently in working out this document, I do not see that there will be any great difficulty in regard to the 32 London boroughs which are becoming structure plan authorities and which are already development plan authorities being able to participate in much the same sort of way. I shall be in touch with noble Lords on that point after our meeting tomorrow.
Lord Elton: It is not often that a Minister at the Dispatch Box has the agreeable feeling that, thanks to the support of members of his party behind him, his presence is really superfluous. I shall therefore not detain your Lordships very long, though I am slightly wounded by the pleasure with which that statement is received.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Not intended.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness will be relieved to learn that what I am holding is not the document that she has in mind. What I have is a blank pad on which I send urgent messages asking for answers to the difficult questions that she puts to me. I am sorry that she felt at the beginning of this evening that she was still in the dark because I think that we covered most of this ground carefully at an earlier Committee sitting. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for being in the dark because she spurred my noble friend Lord Colville to elucidate much more clearly than I could—and, in almost every respect, absolutely accurately—what is contained in the Bill.
I shall therefore pick out just a few points. First, I shall deal with the matters raised by the noble Baroness, who was concerned about the memorandum, Circular 22/84, and that so soon after it was sent out—and it was a great thick document which I do not have in my hand any more than the noble Baroness does—we began dismantling those parts of it which apply to the abolition areas. We issued the memorandum in order to establish proper procedures throughout the country. The reason we are now rejigging those parts which deal with the abolition areas is that we are restructuring local government. It would have been wrong to delay the one in order to allow the completion of the other.
There will be a parallel memorandum for the procedures in Greater London and the metropolitan areas, but Circular 22/84 will continue to apply
256
without change in the shire counties. Even in Greater London and the metropolitan county council areas, sections 1, 4 and 5 of the existing memorandum will continue to apply. The difference is that the procedures described in section 2, which deals with structure plans, and in section 3, which deals with local plans, will be telescoped. We believe that this is a very important improvement for those areas. It is one-stop planning for one-tier local planning authorities and, as my noble friend has said, that will be quicker than what we have at present.
Part 2 of a UDP will include all the local plans. The strategic guidance is not a substitute for structure plans. As I have tried to explain previously, Part 1 of the UDP performs that function. The guidance will certainly cover matters like the future provision needed for housing. However, the essence of the Government's approach is that the guidance will be worked up from the bottom in consultation with the boroughs and the districts. The Secretary of State will work with the boroughs and the districts, and it is not anticipated that many staff will be needed.
I planned to say quite a lot about the lack of conflict between the concept of the Secretary of State being involved early, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would have it, and not getting into a situation where he had tainted his judgment on appeal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, thought he might have done. However, my noble friend Lord Colville dealt with that matter with great lucidity and pointed out that it is really all exactly the same, and will be the same under the Bill, as it was when both noble Baronesses were in office operating the system. That must be the most reasssuring comment that I can make to them.
My noble friend Lady Vickers asked about the future of regional aggregates working parties. The Government intend—I was going to say the "RAWPs"—the R-A-W-Ps to continue with borough and district representation, but I can reassure her that we do not intend that representation to swamp the existing membership. Wider minerals planning issues will be covered in the strategic guidance of which I have spoken, and that will provide the overview for which my noble friend asked.
I have with me a rather workmanlike speech about how all this will work. However, I honestly think that, if your Lordships read Hansard, you would be better advised to read what is already in it rather than what I might be tempted to add.
Baroness Birk: There were a number of points that I wanted to take up, but they were mainly points that were raised by the noble Viscount. He talked about how the Secretary of State had issued guidance for areas when he was in the territory of my noble friend who sits behind me—the area of the West Midlands. When he spoke about the Secretary of State's guidance, a great deal of what he was saying was really being done by the West Midlands County Council and the forum of county councils. However, that is by the way.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I am sorry, it is not. I have the document. It was specifically issued to all the

257
local authorities in the West Midlands by the Secretary of State and it dealt with the sort of things I mentioned. It was not a West Midlands County Council document; it was a regional planning guidance document.
Baroness Birk: The work in the past had been done by the West Midlands County Council, unless we are talking about two different areas of work. Perhaps we should sort that matter out afterwards. I do not think that strategic guidance is firmly built into the present system, but structure plans are built in. I thank the Minister for his reply. We have given the subject another airing. I do not think that we have had a great meeting of minds on it, but in view of the time and the number of amendments still to follow on, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Redundancies and compensation payments]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 136E:
Page 40, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) With a view to reducing the cases in which redundancy payments will fall to be made to such persons as are mentioned in subsection (1) above the Secretary of State may make a scheme for the making of payments by the residuary bodies to employers offering such persons employment which, by virtue of sections 84, 94 and 95 of the said Act of 1978, will preclude their becoming entitled to redundancy payments.").
The noble Lord said: This rather technically worded amendment disguises a proposal intended to improve the job prospects of GLC and MCC employees. We recognise that there could be scope for a voluntary early retirement—or VER—scheme in connection with abolition. There is support for such a scheme outside this House. The staff commission has indicated that such a scheme could be helpful in reducing the number of GLC or MCC employees who would otherwise be left without a new job to go to at abolition, and my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and I have also been much influenced by the ideas on this front put to us by the representatives of the West Midlands branch of NALGO.
The Government have accepted the case put to them by the commission and the West Midlands NALGO representatives. We agree that it would be in everybody's interest if a VER scheme were set up. It would help those who so wished to stop working, and by enabling those younger than themselves to remain in employment it would minimise the number of redundancies. Such a scheme needs careful prepara-tion, and even more it needs the support and commitment of the parties to it.
We shall therefore be writing shortly to both unions and employers inviting views on our proposals, and that is why what we propose at this stage is an enabling power. It will allow the Secretary of State to make a scheme for a residuary body which has been saved the expense of redundancy compensation to make a contribution to the costs of the authority allowing the related early retirement.
The authorities already have the power to let staff go early and to recruit the replacement staff they need. This amendment would provide the one missing piece in the powers available; it is the fruit of trade union members who have been prepared to talk to the Government, and it will benefit their colleague. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: Perhaps I may say a word about this new clause, for it is the clause to which the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, referred briefly last night when my noble friend Lord Winstanley put forward an amendment, seeing the need for early retirement schemes and enhanced pension benefit. My noble friend was sufficiently impressed then with what the noble Earl had to say to feel that when he had been able to read Hansard—an exercise which has not yet been possible, for these exchanges took place at about midnight last night—he would be in a better position to determine whether or not he would wish to return to the subject at a later stage. He will now have the benefit of being able to read also what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has had to say. My initial reaction, for what it is worth, is that this is a helpful clause. For the moment therefore I am happy to receive it with a tentative welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 60 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 137 and 137A not moved.]
Clauses 61 to 65 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): Before calling Amendment No. 137AA, I should inform your Lordships that if it is agreed I cannot call Amendments Nos. 137B, 137134 and 137BB.
Clause 66 [Precepts]:
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett moved Amendment No. 137AA:
Page 47, line 14, leave out subsections (4) to (6).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to exclude the proposed joint authority from the rate-capping provisions of the Rates Act 1984. Before I go any further, I should like to make it clear at the outset that I very much agree with the need to control local government expenditure. The more that is spent on local authorities the less there is for other public expenditure, regardless of whatever the total may be; that is to say, within any given total, the Government, regardless of the figure, must be concerned that the total should not be uncontrolled because it could leave less for public expenditure that any government may consider to have a much higher priority both socially and economically. For example a government may wish to spend more, as it should at the present time, on the National Health Service or capital expenditure in terms of public investment, but these are bound to be restrained if local authority expenditure, no matter how good, has already pre-empted that level of public expenditure.
The Earl of Gowrie: Hear, hear!
Lord Barnett: I hope the noble Earl will say "hear, hear" from now on, because that is rather different from what he said the other day—in my absence, unfortunately. In col. 166 of Hansard on 30th April, he quoted from my book Inside the Treasury—I am grateful to him—where he said:
"The intellectual basis to the policy"—
that is, the policy of the Government—
"is argued brilliantly and cogently on page 90 of the book, Inside the Treasury, written by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the previous Labour Government".
Lord Boyd Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Barnett: I am obliged to the noble Lord for saying "Hear, hear", but the noble Earl got it wrong on two counts. For that public statement he has written a personal apology to me for getting the page wrong, but he got more than the page wrong, as I have already suggested. He was referring to page 76 of the book.
I am not ungrateful to him for his constant references to my book—published by Andre Deutsch, price £9.95—and for the fact that he told me that the Prime Minister keeps it by her bedside I am equally grateful. But he got it completely wrong because he was attempting, in reply to my noble friend Lord Stewart, to argue that what I said on that page gave intellectual support—intellectual support, if you do not mind—to the arguments that he was putting forward on rate capping. The noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong, but that is what he was arguing. There is no where on page 76 or anywhere else in that chapter that said anything whatsoever in support of the need to have rate capping or anything that is in this Bill or any other Bill that this Government have introduced.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Neither of us I think has the text of the sacred work in front of us. Nevetheless, the phrase that I was referring to was in the sentence where, just after a description of a particularly difficult set of Cabinet meetings on local government expenditure, the then Chief Secretary said: "We were always looking for ways of exercising control".
Lord Barnett: The noble Earl really must not misquote. I am sorry he has not got my book there. What I was saying in that paragraph to which he is referring was that I certainly was in favour of using measures like squeezing local authority expenditure by reducing the rate support grant; but nowhere at all in that chapter of my book or in anything that I have ever said—and I hope that the noble Earl will agree, because I do not wish to pursue this at too great a length at this hour of the night—would there be support for the idea of compulsion from Whitehall, where officials cannot be aware of the detailed needs of local authorities.
Rate capping is a clumsy and ineffective way of achieving the objectives of central Government—which I support—to have control of total public expenditure, as the noble Earl knows. I do not resile
260
from anything I have ever said, whether as Chief Secretary or since, and he knows that; but I have never at any time argued for compulsion or the case for central Government to intervene and to tell individual local authorities what should be their detailed expenditure. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that from me, because that is certainly the case.
But that is not to say, as I have repeated again tonight, that once you allow totally uncontrolled expenditure in one area of government, whether it be local or central, that it must then pre-empt other areas of public expenditure—and I am glad to see the noble Lord, a predecessor of mine at the Treasury, nodding in agreement. But that is an entirely different matter from anything that I argued at that time or thereafter in my book. What I was arguing then was about a squeeze through rate support grant allied to an advisory, voluntary consultative committee whereby one got the maximum co—operation from local authorities of all parties. In that way—and I said this in the book as well—we achieved a greater degree of success than anything that has yet been achieved by this Government with their rate-capping proposal.
In fact, this amendment seeks to remove from the Bill what the Government are proposing here because the Government do not just want discretionary power to rate-cap; they want an automatic power to rate-cap—because that is what Clause 66(4), (5) and (6) provide: for the new authorities, that is to say, to be automatically rate capped as from 1st April 1986 for three years. The use of Rates Act 1984 powers in this way is contrary to the Government's own legislation, contrary to Section 2(2) of that Act which requires that designation shall occur only because of expenditure:
"likely to be excessive having regard to general economic conditions".
The abuse of Rates Act powers can be highlighted by quoting from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who said during the passage of that Bill:
"The Bill provides that authorities can only be selected for rate limitation if they are excessive spenders".
I refer to Hansard, volume 450, No. 106, col. 903 on 9th April 1984. But the current criteria for rate-capping involves a comparison of an authority's expenditure with its Department-of-the-Environment-defined Grant Related Expenditure Assessment—and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me; it is a terrible phrase: it is GREA—and the target. But the Secretary of State is not in a position to make a reasonable estimate of the likely relationship between expenditure GREA and target for a joint authority before the authority has been set up and has established itself. Confirmation is in fact to be found in a Government interdepartmental working party minute, to this effect:
"The Home Office said that … although they had sufficient knowledge for criticising budgets"—
Who has not?—
"they did not have the expertise to formulate them."
Of course, we all know that to be the situation. All of us could find means of criticising almost anything that any government or any local authority does, but to ask Marsham Street or the Home Office to formulate detailed proposals is an entirely different matter, as they themselves concede.

261
Here we have a government department in possession of the most detailed information about fire and police services, yet it is unable to formulate budgets for the proposed joint authorities. So what special expertise can the Secretary of State for the Environment bring to bear on the problem in order to supply the required figures? The Departments of State responsible for the three major joint authority functions—there is the Home Office and the Department of Transport—presentaly provide advice and guidance on policy initiatives and expenditure levels to be applied at the local level. While doubtless close links between the decision-makers at the local levels and these Departments of State will remain after the 30th March 1986, a new set of relationships between local decision-makers and the Department of the Environment is to take precedence.
Does this imply a lack of confidence on the part of the Department of the Environment in the influence that the other Departments of State are likely to have over local decision-makers? Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us when he comes to reply. But the dangers inherent in giving the Secretary of State for the Environment powers that allow the detailed control of budgets have been revealed in the outcome of a court action between not a Labour local authority but the Conservative controlled London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Department of the Environment. After a four-year legal tussle over wrongly set expenditure targets, won by the London borough earlier this month, a precedent has been set for local authorities throughout the country,
" … to sue the Environment Secretary over and over again on individual items of expenditure".
This is what the Guardian had to say on the 16th May. An increase in the number of legal actions would be no more or no less than a response to detailed meddling in local affairs by remote bureaucracy, the Department of the Environment. Frankly, if this were being done by any other government than this one, I have no doubt whatsoever that there would be many noble Lords on the opposite side of the Committee who would be complaining bitterly about interference and meddling from a government in Whitehall, and about the shambles that is being created by this Bill. All I am seeking to do now is just to put a little of it right. It surely must be better to exclude joint authorities from rate capping for the reasons I have given. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Elton: I will not join issue with the noble Lord on the merits of his admirable work on the workings of the Treasury, nor on the page references that my noble friend quoted. The quotation was correct, the page was wrong. I will address myself simply to the amendments on the Marshalled List.
The first of the amendments, Amendment No. 137AA, would exempt the new authorities both from automatic control of their precepts for the first three financial years after abolition and entirely from the provisions of the Rates Act, 1984, on the selective limitation of rates and precepts. The amendment, in the name, I think, of the noble Baroness, Lady David, which is less radical, deals only with the new ILEA, and I take it that we are to address them together. Am I wrong? I merely need guidance.
Baroness David: I think in fact it is just a slightly different issue from the main issue, so it was preferred that they were taken separately.
Lord Elton: If I referred to it inadvisedly from time to time, it is because I see it as a problem within a problem rather than as a problem beside a problem—if I make myself clear. That would exempt the authority from automatic precept control for the three-year transitional period.
9.45 p.m.
When we were preparing this Bill we did so in the light of experience—our experience of the considerable inflation in bureaucracy and administrative costs which followed the two major reorganisations of local government in 1965 and 1974. We were also having the experience of the considerable and damaging overspends then being indulged in by a number of local authorities. The joint authorities seem to us to be at risk of developing into overspenders both because all of them will be new authorities, just as the authorities we set up in 1965 and 1974 were new authorities, and because some of them, though not, of course, all will be inheriting a tradition of overspending from their predecessors.
Your Lordships—not even the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—would not have forgiven us had we simply let administrative inflation rampage out of hand a third time; nor would the ratepayers. We therefore resolved to bring in a means of firm restraint for the first formative three years, and for those years only. We made this clear in the White Paper.
It has been suggested that the controls in Clause 66 will result in the services being run by Whitehall. That will not be the case. If they are not satisfied with them, the new authorities will be free to apply to the appropriate Secretary of State for a derogation from their initially determined permitted expenditure levels and will be free to negotiate with him over those same levels.
It will also be entirely for the new authorities themselves to determine their own priorities for expenditure within the total resources available to them. This is not a Whitehall takeover. It is a sensible provision to see that brand new authorities are watched over and guided by those with overall responsibility for overall local government expenditure during their first few formative years. I was heartened to hear the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, say that that was a central Government responsibility.
Those were generalities; but I ought to say something about the effects on each of the services for which new authorities will be responsible after abolition. First, I shall refer to the police and fire authorities. These authorities have a safety net of statutory duties below which they must not and cannot fall. In the case of the fire service there are nationally recommended standards of fire cover. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear on more than one occasion that he will entertain no applications from fire authorities to close fire stations or to remove appliances where the operation of the recommended standards of fire cover would be affected. We have heard a great deal of misleading and

263
mischievous propaganda on this point, particularly in London, and I hope that those responsible for such propaganda will reflect on the effect of their statements on public confidence in and on the morale of the fire service. That service stands in very high esteem in all parts of your Lordships' Chamber.
Police authorities receive a 50 per cent. specific grant on the basis that they maintain an efficient and effective force. Their establishment is subject to the approval of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Again, there is no way that standards of policing are going to be affected by the substitution of joint authorities for the metropolitan county council police committees in the metropolitan areas. But that does not mean that there may not be efficiency savings to be made in these services. In relation to the fire service in particular, my right honourable friend has made clear on a number of occasions the scope for such savings. Precept control under Clause 66 is one means by which the achievement of such efficiency savings can be encouraged.
The bulk of expenditure by passenger transport authorities is, and will continue to be, on revenue support to public transport in their areas. We have long believed that revenue support in the metropolitan counties is too high. The application of the protected expenditure level mechanism under the Transport Act 1983 reflected our policy of reducing that expenditure towards the provision in successive public expenditure White Papers.
In their 1984–85 revenue grant determinations four out of the six metropolitan counties demonstrated their willingness to co-operate with this policy. Our application of precept control will also clearly take account of that policy. In the letter of advice issued to passenger transport executives last year, for their preparation of plans for 1985–86 to 1987–88, we advised them to plan on the assumption that the level of revenue support over the three years of the planning period might be reduced by around 25 to 30 per cent. in cash terms below the PEL set for 1984–85. The provisional expenditure levels set for 1985–86 are consistent with that advice and are 10 per cent. below those set for 1984–85. I should perhaps not touch on ILEA since the noble Baroness has reserved it.
I turn therefore to Amendment No. 137BB, which I take it is on the table in front of us.
Amendment No. 137BB Page 47, line 33, leave out from ("years") to end of line 42.
This amendment would remove the discretion of my right honourable friends to determine expenditure levels for each of the new authorities on criteria appropriate to those authorities individually and would require them instead to act according to general principles applicable to all the authorities responsible for the same services.
This amendment, too, misconceives the purpose of the transitional controls. It also ignores the significantly different responsibilities which are proposed for the PTAs. Merseyside and Tyne and Wear PTAs will assume responsibility for the Mersey and Tyne tunnels. Some, but not all, PTAs may assume the MCC's interests in airports.
264
The transitional precept controls must take account of those different responsibilities. They must also take account of the fact that, unlike councils subject to selective limitation, not all the MCCs are currently excessive overspenders; nor is the pattern between the services for which the new authorities will become responsible consistent. Some MCCs spend very highly on some—but not necessarily the same—services, and not on others.
The amendment would require my right honourable friends to operate precept control as a blunt instrument, demanding across-the-board savings from all new authorities because a few of them will inherit excessive spending levels. The amendment, incidentally, would also delete the purely technical provision in Clause 66(6)(b) to deal with the situation if, during the transitional period, the Government found it necessary—as we sincerely hope they will not—to introduce general rate limitation under Section 10 of the Rates Act.
It makes it clear that the new authorities would remain subject to precept control under this Act. Without the provision, both sets of procedures would apply with slight, but important, technical differences. I do not think that that would be sensible, nor do I think it was intended.
I hope that I have said enough to allay what I appreciate are real concerns about the controls proposed in this clause. I address myself particularly to the new joint authorities because I believe that that is where the anxiety is greatest. I have not referred to ILEA because I understand that we are to have that pleasure later.
Lord Barnett: I do not think the noble Lord will be too surprised if I tell him that I do not find his reply at all satisfactory. Indeed, his reply seems to indicate to me, and I should have thought to most noble Lords, a lack of confidence in the legislation itself because it is a fact, as we all know, that single-function authorities are more likely to turn out to be pressure groups for particular items of expenditure; whereas it would have been much better if one had multi-function authorities county-wide. But the Government had decided by a simple sentence in the manifesto to abolish those without having thought through what they will put in their place. But they did not abolish the functions—may I finish the sentence?
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is traducing—
Lord Barnett: I shall give way in a second; but if I may finish, having decided to abolish authorities but to keep functions, the Government have not known precisely what to do with those functions. That is why they are in the shambles that they are in at the present time.
Lord Elton: I do not know whether the noble Lord wants to expedite proceedings or to delay them; nor do I know whether he was present at the Second Reading or at most of the Committee stage days. But we have disposed of the myth or canard that this is an ad hoc policy dreamed up in a few minutes before the election programme and imposed upon the party by a single sentence in the manifesto. I will dispose of it now,

265
because it simply is not true, and if the noble Lord wants to go back to the Second Reading and have a furious political debate about that, I am perfectly happy to do so. But if he does not, he should not raise the matter and should get on with the subject in hand.
Lord Barnett: The noble Lord is in danger of getting as angry as his noble friend Lord Gowrie. He should not get too upset about these things. He must be prepared to accept that not everybody agrees with what, by bringing in a few hundred Members, he was able to persuade the House to vote for; that he is not able to persuade everybody else of the truth of what he says. The plain fact is that I do not accept that argument, and neither does anybody who has really studied the matter. The plain fact is that the Government are retaining functions and do not know where to put them. That is why they have residuary authorities; that is why they have joint bodies, and all the problems that we are now discussing. The noble Lord knows the situation, and he must not get too excited about it.
That is a fact, and the reason why I raise it now is not that I particularly want to stay up through the night, though I am used to that. I must tell the noble Lord that his colleagues in the other place, including the present Chancellor, used to keep me up on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays from four o'clock in the afternoon to eight o'clock the following morning week after week. If he likes, we shall be happy to oblige him. That is not my intention, but if he keeps getting angry and annoyed about these matters I am bound to continue. He must not get too angry. He must understand that there are different views about what he said.
Lord Elton: I accept that there are different views about what I said before, and I shall get as angry as I please according to what the noble Lord says. But as to the length of the proceedings, I only want to put it on record that when the noble Lord says, as he has said several times already, that I must accept something, or, "It is the case that …", your Lordships must not take the silence which I display in order to expedite matters this evening as being in any way assent to anything he says.
Lord Barnett: I do not expect the noble Lord to accept what I say. We are debating matters about which we disagree, and he must therefore accept that there are many others who do not agree with what he has said for the last three weeks. The fact that he has
266
been able to persuade some of his colleagues to vote for matters that he has moved in this Chamber does not mean that we on this side of the Chamber, or those on the other side, either, or those outside, have to agree with him. I am sorry that he is annoyed about it, but that is the way I feel about it. I am bound to tell your Lordships that.
Having said that, and having upset the noble Lord—and I apologise for upsetting him; I hope that he still sleeps all right—he said earlier (and I hope he will consider it in order if I reply to him) that I would not forgive him if the Government did anything to add to the inflationary spiral. I have not done anything to add to the inflationary spiral. Anything I say here tonight will not do a thing. It is what the Government have been doing that will add to the inflationary spiral, and not what I am doing.
The plain fact—and the noble Lord has not replied to this straight point in relation to this amendment: it is no use his getting angry about it, he has not replied to it—is that there is no basis for the judgment that these newly-created authorities will be high spenders. What grounds has the noble Lord? He has not said anything at all. He has no comparison to make, as I said was necessary in order to have the discretionary power to rate-cap, let alone to rate-cap automatically. So why do the Government want to have this automatic power?
I thought that the Government were supposedly abolishing what they had described as, and which the noble Lord tells us was accepted by a majority as, a wasteful and unnecessary tier of Government. I quote the noble Lord. Presumably the Government must think that the new authorities will, by contrast, be efficient and necessary. Yet having decided that, they now decide that they want an automatic power to rate-cap. How has the noble Lord replied to that argument? He has not replied at all. The Government apparently have such little faith in their own proposals that they feel it necessary to subject the new authorities, not merely to the possibility, not merely to a discretionary power, of rate limitation like other authorities, but to automatic rate limitations for the first three years of their existence. In effect, the Government are presuming the new authorities guilty before they have even had the chance to prove themselves innocent. I should have thought, even at this late stage, that your Lordships would accept that the noble Lord the Minister has not replied to the arguments.
On Question, amendment negatived.
10 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 137B:
Page 47, line 28, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence")
The noble Lord said: With this amendment goes Amendment No. 137C.
Amendment No. 137C: Clause 67, page 48, line 34, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Both these amendments are consequential upon amendments that were agreed to on Clause 25 a week ago. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Since it has been some Committee days since this subject was referred to, I should say that, of course, I totally agree with my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 137BA:
Page 47, line 30, after ("authority") insert ("other than the Authority established by Part III of this Act".).
The noble Baroness said: The reason that I wish to take this amendment separately from Amendment No. 137AA in the name of my noble friend is that the position of ILEA is slightly different from the position of the joint boards in that ILEA is to be a directly elected authority. I totally agree with everything my noble friend has said, but it seems to me that from the point of view of ILEA it is even more important that it should be left to get on with its own business for its first three years as a newly elected authority and should, even more than the joint boards, have the right to make up its own mind and not be handicapped by this ogre standing over it for the first three years of its existence. I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: I do not know whether it falls to me to be wheeled on as the ogre, as the noble Baroness has said, but we consider it essential to include ILEA within the coverage of this clause. ILEA is clearly over-spending. That its provision is generous to say the least can clearly be seen by looking at its pupil-teacher ratios, its numbers of non-teaching staff, its expenditure on books and equipment and the like.
The precept maximum of 77.25 pence for 1985–86 approved by the House on 6th February was consistent with the expenditure level of £900 million announced last July by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That expenditure level required only a small reduction in cash from ILEA's likely out-turn for 1984–85. Over the past few years some 20 authorities have cut their spending on education by 5 per cent. or more in real terms in one year. The expenditure level for ILEA was more than 60 per cent. above its GREA. In practice, therefore, ILEA will be spending a great deal more in 1985–86 by using reserves.
Whatever reductions the body may eventually make in 1985–86, it is inevitable that on abolition the new ILEA will inherit a level of expenditure well in excess of its GREA. The public expenditure White Paper published on 22nd January made clear that the Government will be making special efforts to curb
268
over-spending, particularly by ILEA, in order to bring expenditure on education within the planned totals. The use of precept controls over the new ILEA for its first three financial years is obviously one of the means we shall use to achieve that aim. The amount of any reduction which we shall require in any one year clearly cannot yet be determined, but there is no reason to suppose that it will be any more harsh than the small cash reduction which was implied by the expenditure limit for 1985–86.
The noble Baroness has argued that we should rely on the existing provisions of the Rates Act 1984 for selective precept limitation of ILEA, and that it should not be subject to automatic precept limitation for the three-year transitional period. But this is to ignore the central purpose of these transitional controls as I have already explained them. I put it to the noble Baroness that it may help the new ILEA in responsible forward planning and in negotiations with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to know right from the outset just where it is and within what controls it will be required to operate. I should have thought that the noble Baroness would welcome that and that therefore she could withdraw her amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Baroness decides whether or not to withdraw her amendment, can the noble Earl say whether any special arrange-ments will be made for the removal of asbestos from school buildings? Will a special fund which will not be subject to rate capping be made available for that purpose? The removal of asbestos from school buildings could be a very expensive job.
The Earl of Gowrie: I shall look into that and let the noble Lord know.
Baroness David: Clearly, there are many problems which have to be resolved. The noble Earl has given a long reply—
The Earl of Gowrie: Not very long.
Baroness David: Long compared with my speech in moving the amendment. I shall read what the noble Earl has to say. I am not convinced by his arguments. A new authority should have a chance to be treated responsibly and be allowed to make its own plans. After that time, if it has behaved, as the noble Earl put it, irresponsibly, then something should happen. However, it should be given a chance during its first three years to be trusted and to have a real opportunity to prove itself. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137BB not moved.]
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 [Block grant]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 137C:
[Printed 21/5/85; col. 267.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 68 to 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Levies]:
[Amendment No. 137D not moved.]
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Audit]:
[Amendment No. 137E not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Transitional provisions relating to block grant and expenditure levels]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 137F I should say that if it is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 138.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett moved Amendment No. 137F:
Page 54, line 10 leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon and also of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the same principles are applied in determining block grant entitlements and total expenditure levels for the proposed joint authorities as are applied for other local authorities; which seems a perfectly reasonable objective, as I hope your Lordships and the Minister will agree. I see him smiling in assent, so perhaps he will.
Clause 78, as amended on Report in the other place, provides for the Secretary of State to determine notional 1985–86 grant entitlements and to set 1986–87 grant-related expenditure assessments—GREAs—and expenditure targets. In subsections (2) and (3) the Secretary of State seeks the power to depart from the general principles presently applied when settling GREAs and expenditure targets for relevant authorities; that is, for the successor bodies to the metropolitan counties and the GLC.
In introducing the amendment to insert subsection (3) at the Report stage in another place the Minister for Local Government, Kenneth Baker, said, and it is worth quoting:
"Without this amendment, we could face the situation where it was obvious that one selected authority needed to spend more than another on transferred functions, but we could not allow for this because there would be no general principle to describe it. I should stress that we shall still have to apply principles to each authority, which will have to be reasonable. We shall have to justify the reasonableness; we cannot pluck figures out of the air."—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/85; col. 728.]
It is an innovation for Ministers, I must say, not to pluck figures out of the air. Ministers have been doing it for a very long time. I confess to having done a bit myself and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did. Now we are expected to accept that they will never ever do such a thing again: all Ministers in future will be very reasonable. But if they intend to be reasonable—and let us assume for the moment that
270
they will be reasonable—why on earth will they not adhere to the common principles?
Is the reluctance to adhere to those common principles a vote of no confidence in the GREAs and the target system designed, redesigned and detailed by successive Conservative Secretaries of State? The departure from common principles allows scope for the exercise of bias against or in favour of individual authorities which has been known to happen over the years under successive Governments.
It is disturbing in the context of subsections (2) and (3) to read a letter from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the leader of Sefton Council, Ronald Watson, dated 22nd January 1985. He declares:
"As to the future, I am well aware of the view that the y ear when the abolition of the metropolitan counties takes place should be seen to coincide with a nil increase or ideally a reduction in the ratepayers' bill. This is certainly something I shall have in mind".
That is a perfectly understandable statement of objectives. In Clause 78 the Secretary of State is seeking to take powers to secure that objective regardless of what rate rises might or might not be imposed on shire counties; that is to say, as a result of cuts in rate support grant, regardless of the implications of a nil increase or a reduction in rates in metropolitan areas on the standard and level of locally provided services.
At the House of Commons Report stage Kenneth Baker, the Minister, said that he would examine the practicality of publishing details of the principles applied to individual authorities where subsection (2) and (3) powers are invoked. While deletion of subsections (2) and (3) would be the best protection, in my view, against bias in Government dealings with individual authorities—not just the present Government but any future Government—publication of details of the principles applied to individual authorities under subsection (2) and (3) powers would at least be a second best safeguard. But there has so far been no indication from the Government as to whether they propose to publish that information. Perhaps tonight the Minister will give us the details that I have indicated we are entitled to expect. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The purpose of the subsections which this amendment would delete is to enable the Government to take account of the actual distribution of the cost of transferred functions in setting expenditure guidance, or "targets", for successor authorities and expenditure levels for those successor authorities selected for rate limitation. Clause 78(2) concerns targets, and Clause 78(3) concerns expenditure levels. Both provisions are transitional and apply to the first year after abolition only.
I should first say that the Government have repeatedly made it clear that we do not want to retain the system of targets and grant holdback any longer than necessary; But I am not yet able to say whether targets will be set for 1986–7. However, if they are retained, Clause 78(2) will be essential, as I shall explain. Although we have taken no decisions on selection for rate limitation in 1986–7, I can say with

271
confidence that some of the successor districts are likely to be selected, and Clause 78(3) is certain to be required.
Our object in adjusting targets and expenditure levels for the consequences of abolition will be to take account as accurately as possible of the actual incidence of the costs of transferred functions. Precisely how we will do that will depend in part on the quality of the information we get from the GLC and metropolitan counties. Without these provisions we should have to set targets on the basis of general principles applying to all authorities and expenditure levels on the basis of principles applying to all authorities in a class.
10.15 p.m.
Concern has been expressed about the magnitude of the discretion these provisions give the Secretary of State, but he will still have to act reasonably and in accordance with principles under the common law. Moreover, we made it clear, and I can repeat, that the discretion will be used only to make adjustments between authorities for differences in the costs of tranferred functions. It will not be used to require bigger savings from successor authorities on their inherited spending, by way of targets or rate limitation, than we would have required from the appropriate metropolitan authority if it had survived.
I detect that the noble Lord's anxiety is that we shall use the availability of differences between the authorities to penalise those that we do not like. However, what I am saying to the noble Lord is that we shall use it merely to carry forward existing policy in a uniform manner.
The provisions at issue are thus both technical and transitional. Without them, some successor authorities would have difficulty meeting the costs of transferred functions while others would have more than they needed. I know that this is not a result that the Committee wishes to achieve, and I do not think the noble Lord does either. The noble Lord asked me about publication. I can tell him that the Secretary of State will explain how he has made the adjustments to targets and, where appropriate, for successor authorities.
Lord Barnett: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, will not be surprised to hear that I do not find his reply at all satisfactory. However, not wishing to upset him again at this hour of the night, I will not press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 54, line 14, at end insert ("and any principles used for any authority shall have explicit regard to the need to ensure continued funding of voluntary organisations comparable with that which obtained before the abolition date.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 138. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 139 and 140.
272
Amendment No. 139: Page 54, line 20, at end insert—
(" ( ) In setting any expenditure level under section 3 of the Rates Act 1984 or any maximum rate under section 4 of the Rates Act 1984 in authorities in the Greater London and metropolitan county areas, the Secretary of State shall have explicit regard in the three years beginning with the abolition date to the need to ensure continued funding of voluntary organisations comparable with that which obtained before the abolition date.").
Amendment No. 140: Clause 81, page 55, line 41, at end insert—
(" ( ) Any arrangements for operating a London Rates Equalisation Scheme under section 66 of the Local Government Act 1963 shall have explicit regard to the need to ensure a distribution of rate burdens and grants within the Greater London area which allows continued funding of voluntary organisations comparable with that which obtained before the abolition date.").
We have all heard the Government's arguments on a number of occasions that the boroughs and districts will be free to levy rates equivalent to the precepts of the GLC and the metropolitan counties and the Government will divide up the grant-related expenditure of the upper-tier authorities among the boroughs and districts.
These assurances are not at present, in my view, explicit and specific enough. This batch of amendments enjoins the Secretary of State to have explicit regard to the need to ensure a broadly comparable overall flow of funding to the voluntary sector when he is calculating the level at which expenditure targets and rate caps should be set and when arrangements are made for operating the London rates equalisation scheme. This will give an appropriate weighting to the expenditure on voluntary projects, when available to the boroughs and districts, without affecting their freedom to choose to disburse those resources as they may decide. In passing, perhaps I may say that I am assured that the computer in the Department of the Environment is quite capable of adding this explicit consideration, this kind of weighting, to its deliberations.
This evening I want to use these amendments to seek a little further clarification of some undertakings that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave yesterday If he is able to give me the assurances I seek, these amendments may be superfluous, or partly superfluous. At col. 22 of Hansard yesterday, the noble Lord said:
"My third undertaking, therefore, this afternoon is that both RSG and targets, if we still have them, will be adjusted to take account of their…responsibilities"—
that is, the expenditure of the authorities—
"for this expenditure".
I stress the word "this", because I am uncertain whether it refers only to transitional funding or to the collective scheme under Clause 47 as well.
At col. 88 the noble Lord spoke of the effects of the Government's undertakings (and I quote again),
"in respect of the amount of money which the Secretary of State allowed to be expended through GRE … or rate capping".
He went on to say:
"We will adjust the GRE and if they continue, reduce the targets in order to see that expenditure by the local authorities of these sums of money does not militate against them".
Again, I am not quite sure of the value or weight that should be attached to the word "these". I seek definition of "these sums".
At col. 91 the noble Lord mentioned, in addition to GREs and targets, rate capping assessment, and said that:
"the expenditure which I have encouraged local authorities to make with the hacking of Government money will not bring them into that sort of penally".
As with the previous quotations, it is important to know whether the broader or the narrower interpretation of expenditure is correct; that is to say, whether we are talking only of transitional funding or whether we are talking of all the collective borough and district expenditure under Clause 47; whether that will receive the same treatment, too.
The amendments on the Marshalled List refer to all voluntary sector grant expenditure inherited by boroughs or districts from the GLC or the MCCs. If the noble Lord's undertakings are to be interpreted in a narrower sense than that, we may want to return to the amendments at the next stage of the Bill. For the moment I am simply seeking clarification from the noble Lord, so that I may know how to proceed.
Lord Elton: To save time, may I ask the noble Lord whether his real concern is with clarification of the undertakings, or does he wish me also to address the amendments themselves?
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Lord has addressed me with commendable directness. I shall reply in the same spirit. At this stage I am simply seeking clarification. I have no intention of pressing the amendments.
Lord Elton: I think, then, that I should be able to dispel the fears that have been voiced. In recent years the great majority of GLC spending has been financed from the rates through the GLC's precept on the boroughs. On abolition, the GLC's precept will, of course, cease. In its place the successor boroughs and districts will start to levy their own rates and successor joint authorities to levy their own precepts to finance the services that they take on. The fire board will levy a precept but by far the greater volume will be raised by the boroughs for their own use. There is absolutely no question about the boroughs' access to the major source of GLC resources because it is their own ratepayers.
There has been concern about the distribution of these resources. It has been pointed out that there are rich boroughs and poor boroughs and that the GLC's precept redistributes these resources within London. The noble Lord will forgive me if I reassure others than those he has spoken for. We have made clear from the start that we intend this redistribution to continue after abolition. The main mechanism will be an extended London rate equalisation scheme under which the very rich central boroughs will continue to contribute towards the cost of these services elsewhere in London. Together with the redistributive effect of the block grant system, this will ensure that the poorer boroughs are not worse off than those with higher resources. We have also given an assurance about the overall level of block grant for these services after abolition.
274
In recent years the GLC's high spending has meant that it has got very little grant. In 1983–84 and 1984–85 it got none at all. Nevertheless, had its spending been lower, it could have earned a substantial amount of grant. We have made it clear that the London authorities can expect to get the same level of grant for any given level of spending as the GLC would have received if it had remained in being and spent at the same level. This safeguards London's overall grant position from the effects of abolition.
Within the block grant system we have also given the boroughs assurances that we will adjust the various figures—GREs, expenditure levels and targets, if these are retained—to take account of their new responsibilities. The GLC's GRE will be split between the successor bodies on the basis of the national formulae that apply throughout the country. If targets are retained, successor bodies' targets will be adjusted in a way that takes account of the geographical distribution of GLC spending. We will also allow for additional functions being taken on from the GLC by the boroughs when we set the expenditure levels for any of these boroughs which we select for rate capping in 1986–87.
I hope that what I have said will allay the very real concern that has been expressed during earlier discussion in the Committee. Provided that the GLC's successor bodies take responsible decisions about the services they take on, the resources will be there to finance them. I have spoken specifically about London because that is where the situation is most complex. However, with the exception of the London rate equalisation scheme which is necessary in London because of the very high resources of the central boroughs, the assurances which I have given apply also in the metropolitan areas.
I have stated our commitment. If its effect is exactly to match the case of each successor authority, we must have the information on which to base our calculations. Successor bodies that wish to use our commitment in order to protect themselves, must give us that information, and I also ask them to impress on the abolition authorites the need to do the same.
What I have just outlined is the general position that applies to all the services being taken over by successors. Let me answer particular questions about how this applies to support for the voluntary sector. Under our proposals for transitional aid on projects taken over from the GLC and the MCCs, the boroughs and districts will bear a proportion of the cost. I can confirm that both that expenditure and the contribution each borough or district makes under the collective scheme for its area will be taken into account in the way in which I have described.
In fairness, I must make it clear that the resources available to boroughs and districts are not ring-fenced by the system for them to spend on voluntary bodies alone. Just as the GLC and the MCCs have been able to set their priorities within their overall budget so, too, will the boroughs and districts. However, I hope the message will be clear to authorities that resources are released by abolition and that the voluntary sector has a claim to some of those resources.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I think that what he said was music to my ears, but I shall obviously need to read what he said with close attention tomorrow. I understood the noble Lord to say that in fact both the transitional funding and the collective expenditure under Clause 47 would be considered in setting these levels. If that is so, I am glad of it.
I assure the noble Lord that we are not asking for earmarking, but simply seeking to set the targets in such a way that no authority can say that it is having to cut back on voluntary service provision because its target was hopelessly inadequate. I think that I have said enough on that matter. It is too late to go into the complexities of the London rate equalisation scheme. I shall read very carefully tomorrow what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clauses 79 and 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [London rate equalisation schemes]:
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 81 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Barnett: This is a very important clause and I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I say a few words about it. In the consultation paper The Disappearance of the GLC Precept, the Secretary of State affirmed his intention:
"to ensure that the disappearance of the GLC precept does not result in an inequitable shift of burden either between ratepayers within London or between London ratepayers and those in the rest of the country".
London equalisation is an esoteric and complex subject; therefore, I shall briefly explain the background to Clause 81. Noble Lords will be aware that the GLC precept serves an equalising purpose over the Greater London area. That is to say that the GLC's net expenditure is financed by means of a broadly equal rate poundage across the whole of London. One effect of this is that the richer boroughs, such as Westminster and the City of London, which are high in rateable resources—and I suppose I should declare an interest—pay more than the poorer boroughs, such as Hackney and Lewisham.
When the GLC is abolished, the distribution of its service responsibilities—and therefore its financial responsibilities—will inevitably be uneven and will have no regard whatever to the resources available to individual boroughs. A borough which has low rateable resources, but heavy transferred responsibilities, could therefore be severely disadvantaged by the abolition of the GLC, whereas a more fortunate area would have a windfall gain. These are facts which are generally recognised, and I know that the Government recognise them. It is this problem which the Government are attempting to address with their commitment to ensure that "no inequitable shift of burden" takes place, either within London or between London and the rest of the country, as a result of abolition.
276
10.30 p.m.
The key to achieving this lies in the proposal to extend the existing London equalisation scheme whereby the City of London and the City of Westminster make a contribution to all the other inner London boroughs. The proposal, as I understand it, is to remove the windfall gains from Westminster, the City of London, Camden, and Kensington and Chelsea and to distribute the proceeds to all the other boroughs, outer London as well as inner London. The effect would be at the end of the day that services transferred from the GLC would continue to be funded by London as a whole rather than by the individual boroughs receiving the responsibilities. In other words, this would be a kind of life after death for the GLC precept.
Doubts have been voiced as to the logic of this idea. If boroughs are to take on these services, it has been argued, then surely they should take on the financial responsibility for these services in exactly the same way as they bear the financial responsibility for the services they have now. The taxing of one borough for the benefit of other boroughs breaks the nexus between expenditure decisions and taxation consequences, and therefore weakens accountability, at a time when I would hope your Lordships would agree that accountability should be increased. This issue of accountability and the way it is to be effected by the extension of the London equalisation scheme is an important and controversial issue in itself, but it is not the issue which concerns me here.
The issue which concerns me is that the Secretary of State has given an undertaking, which of course I accept, but that there is unfortunately nothing in the Bill to ensure that the undertaking is fulfilled either by this or, even more importantly, by any future Secretary of State. I must emphasise that there is a conspicuous absence of any provision in the Bill to give authority to the undertaking that the Secretary of State has given. It therefore creates great uncertainty for all boroughs, rich and poor alike. The poorer boroughs could be deprived by an unsympathetic Secretary of State of the resources essential to carry out their new responsibilities. Another Secretary of State might be unable to resist the temptation to soak the ratepayers of the City of London and Westminster for the benefit of other areas. There is no guarantee for any borough.
Even the experts do not seem to know how borough rates will be affected. The London Working Party—a group of officials from the DoE and the London boroughs—has produced a report which attempts to illustrate the effects of abolition on individual London borough rates. Yet paragraph 3 of the report tells us to take no notice of the figures. Probably that is good advice. It says:
"the new figures appear at first sight to indicate that there might be an overall reduction in average rates in London as a result of abolition quite apart from the effects of any cut in spending levels. This is misleading, and no such conclusion should be drawn".
The report goes on to record the view of the London Boroughs Association representatives that the range of variation in rate poundage changes faced by the London boroughs on the basis of the scheme as developed thus far would be "unacceptable". It would seem, therefore, that there is still great uncertainty

277
even in the minds of the expert statisticians and accountants of the DoE and the London boroughs as to the effect on borough rates.
The uncertainty is further illustrated by the remarkable turn-around in the prognostications of the City of Westminster. A year ago they were predicting a saving of £369 million from abolition of the GLC, equal to a rate of about 19p in the pound. Now they say it could actually result in rate increases. The fact is that as yet no one knows what the financial effects would be, and no one knows how to deal with them. There is even uncertainty as to which boroughs will fund the scheme and which will receive.
One appreciates that there are formidable technical problems in the way of ensuring that the Secretary of State's promises and undertakings are carried out. Yet if they are not overcome the financial effects on ratepayers in some parts of London could, as will be clear, be very serious indeed.
There must be added to all these problems which I have outlined the impenetrable complications of the block grant system. I should be the first to concede that all systems relating to equalisation and anything to do with allocation of local authority grants from local government are somewhat complex, to say the least. As I understand it, there was only one official in the Department of the Environment who understood it, and he has left. We have the impenetrable complications of the block grant system and the labyrinthine network of joint financing schemes, inter-borough charging and lead borough cost recoveries so that the end result, inevitably, is likely to be a financial shambles, incomprehensible even to the DoE and the local authorities, let alone to ratepayers, electors or anyone else.
The Bill gives little comfort to the very ratepayers who are supposed to be helped by abolition. They have been told that abolition will not disadvantage them in any way. After the traumas of this Bill that is not an enormous offer and so I hope that the Minister will now spell out just how even this minimum assurance can be made effective in practice.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is showing all the sparkling form that my right honourable and honourable friends in another place endowed him with in the long training that they gave him in staying up until four in the morning, about which he spoke earlier. I congratulate him on the incisiveness of his appraisal of this part of the Bill, though I cannot say that I entirely share his analysis.
The clause relates to the future arrangements for the London rates equalisation scheme: the scheme made annually by my right honourable friend under Section 66 of the Local Government Act 1963 to reduce disparities in rates levied in different areas of Greater London. The LRES in its present form dates from the introduction of the block grant system in the financial year 1981–82. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that we have since recruited several people who understand the system; otherwise I doubt I should have had the courage to stand here.
To a great extent the more sophisticated arrangements for equalising resources under the new system
278
make it possible to take account of different rateable values in London without a special rate equalisation scheme for London. The exception is for authorities in London which receive no block grant because of unusually high rateable values, principally the City and Westminster. The present LRES is designed simply to ensure that these two boroughs make some contribution towards the costs of providing services in the rest of inner London. This is taken into account in determining the block grant entitlements of inner boroughs through the rateable value discount given to them. The LRES for future years is to be extended to take account of the loss of the GLC precept which currently plays an important role in the equalisation of resources in London. It will ensure that ratepayers in all the high resource boroughs, including Camden and possibly Kensington and Chelsea, do not make windfall gains as a result of abolition. Such gains would be at the expense of ratepayers elsewhere, I swiftly say so that those who are encouraged by the thought rapidly discard any encouragement.
We are already well into consultation with the boroughs. It is clear that they have every expectation of our fulfilling our undertaking and it is essential that the detailed mechanics of these arrangements, complex and changing year by year, should not be fixed once and for all in primary legislation. That is another way of saying that the exact undertaking that the noble Lord should like to see engraved on the face of the Bill cannot be there because the ground to which it refers changes too quickly.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 140ZA and 140 ZB not moved.]
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Exercise of functions by new authorities in initial period]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 140ZC:
Page 56, line 25, after ("authority") insert ("other than the Authority established by Part III of this Act")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to say that the aim is very similar to that of Amendment No. 137BA, which I moved earlier and which is that the new ILEA, the elected authority, should stand on its own feet and be treated as a responsibile elected authority like any other local authority. The purpose of this particular amendment is to remove ILEA from Clause 83; that is, from control by the Secretary of State for the first three years of staffing, provision of services and administration. The Bill proposes in Clause 83 to provide the Secretary of State with power to require the new authority to submit schemes for his approval concerning, first, the number of persons employed; second, arrangements for obtaining services, supplies and facilities; and, third, for the authority's organisation and its arrangements for managing its affairs.
During the debate at Committee stage in another place the Minister reiterated what the Secretary of State for Education and Science had stated in a Written Answer on 5th February: that an administrative structure already existed for ILEA and that

279
ILEA would be facing the prospect of rate limitation under current proposals. However, the Government said that they did not then, and do not at present, propose to make regulations under Clause 80 in respect of the new ILEA.
The Minister then continued to say:
"However, I must make it quite clear to the Committee, and to people outside that if there are signs that the new ILEA intends to take decisions which will have implications for manpower considerations that are not in accordance with the objectives of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, it might be necessary to seek that regulations are made under the provisions".
That was in Hansard on 5th March, 1985.
These arrangements, if implemented, would result in the Secretary of State becoming involved in the detailed administration of the new directly-elected authority; and that must be seen to be intolerable for responsible officers trying to run the new ILEA. The third of the areas listed above (that is, the authority's organisation and its arrangements for managing its affairs) seems capable of wide interpretation; but on the face of it would enable the Secretary of State to intervene in almost any aspect of the authority's work, In light of the decision made last week in this Committee when we agreed to the amendment preventing the abolition or reconstruction of the new ILEA, it is evident that there is strong support for stability to be maintained within the education service. Therefore, such intervention by the Secretary of State as proposed in the Bill would have a contrary effect and would lead to disruption and instability. I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: I have a long, splendid brief, including a paragraph 13 which has the immortal heading: "If pressed on Guardian leak". But I feel that I have not been pressed on the Guardian leak, so I shall cut this out.
It may help the Committee if I describe our intended use of the controls in Clause 83 in relation to each of the new authorities, and how we expect that the obligations which it places on those authorities will work in practice. The clear intention behind these controls was expressed in the White Paper. The Government are determined (and I am quoting)
"that the creation of the new authority shall not be used as an opportunity to set up extravagent and expensive new organisations. The Secretaries of State will wish to be satisfied that the new authority's administrative structures will result in the economical operation of the services and that, where appropriate, arrangements will be made for the sharing of administrative and other staff and the contracting out of specialist services".
The controls in Clause 83, together with the controls over the new authority's precepts in Clause 66, which the Committee has already debated, of course, are the means by which we propose to achieve these aims.
10.45 p.m.
Now the noble Baroness's amendment would exempt the new ILEA from the provisions of Clause 83. I do not think that would be right. As my right honourable friend made clear in another place on 5th February, however, the administrative structure is already in existence in the case of ILEA; nor will ILEA be facing the prospect of rate limitation for the first time as regards 1986–87. In the circumstances,
280
therefore, the Government do not at present propose to make regulations under the clause, Clause 83, in the case of the new ILEA. This, I hope, will help reassure the noble Baroness and the Committee.
It should, I think, though, be clearly understood that, as my right honourable friend also said, if there are indications that decisions taken by ILEA will have implications for manpower that are not in accordance with the objectives of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, regulations under this clause will be made. The content of any such regulations would depend on the circumstances that they were intended to meet. So I do not think the Government are doing anything but giving the new ILEA a chance to operate with the independence and freedom that the noble Baroness seeks, and I hope therefore that she will not insist on excluding the new ILEA from the scope of the transitional controls under this clause.
Baroness David: I think the noble Lord must have reduced his brief very cleverly if it really was a very long one. It does seem maybe that there is a better chance being given to the new ILEA than I had thought. I should not like to commit myself on that until I have had a chance to read what he has said tomorrow in Hansard; but for the present I shall be pleased to say that I will study his reply and reserve my right to come back at the next stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 83 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Birk: It is very late, but really I cannot let Clause 83 pass without making as brief a comment as I can. I do not intend to oppose the Question but I must make some comment on it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who has joined me on this, has had to go.
What the clause does is make provision for the Secretary of State to make schemes, the effect of which would be to allow him to intervene in the affairs of a new authority. This will be in regard to staff numbers, the buying in of external services, and the authority's internal organisation and management arrangements. The power is available for a three-year period from abolition date. The clause will also, in subsection (4), enable unlimited supplementary provisions to be contained in any regulations laid down. The Secretary of State will be able to change his mind and he will be able to vary schemes already approved. He will be able to draw up such transitional arrangements as he thinks necessary to effect an end to the period for which these controls are to be applied under present proposals.
If accepted, this clause will mean a significant transfer of power from local to central Government in respect of those functions to be taken over by the new authorities. In other words, there will be an even further move from the local authorities towards centralisation. This has been commented on not only in the newspapers but also by Government departments and other Ministers as well. I am cutting this down at this stage in order to speed up the time factor.

281
If this clause is adopted unchanged and the powers are applied the result will be further confusion of accountability. Who ultimately will be responsible for the police civilian dealing with staffing matters? The police come very much into this division of powers. Will it be the Secretary of State or will it be, as it should be, the elected representatives of the community served by that new authority?
When accountabilities are confused, what is it that suffers? It is ultimately the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the service. I am aware that that is a truncated account of an extremely important clause, but I did not feel that the Committee stage should go by, even at this time of night, without making some comment. I intend to return to it on Report, with amendments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Has the noble Baroness made the situation unnecessarily terrifying? Would such regulations as she envisages be so terrible? Would they not have to come before both Houses? Therefore she is not objecting to the powers given to the Minister; she is objecting to Parliament having the final say on things—and the other place is an elected assembly, and so they would be representative of the people. Is it not, when one recognises that the regulations have to be approved, unnecessarily terrifying for the noble Baroness to put the position as she did?
Baroness Birk: I did not say it was terrifying; it was the noble Lord who said it was terrifying. What I said was that it was very bad. It does not have to go to the councils because if the Secretary of State makes the decision and intervenes, that is where the matter rests. It is the Secretary of State's power against which I am arguing, which removes from the local council—whether it be district or borough—the power to make decisions in its own right. I am sorry that, probably through having condensed by intervention so much, it may not have been as clear as it should have been. But the noble Lord need not fear; I shall return to it.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 and 85 agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 140A:
[Printed 21/5/85; col. 222.]
The noble Lord said: This amendment is one to which I have already spoken. It is intended to replace the present Clause 86 provisions for research and data collection in the metropolitan areas. Its purpose is to strengthen the arrangements whereby London boroughs and metropolitan district councils will be able to undertake research and to collect and have access to information on a consistent London or county-wide basis.
I shall be very brief, but I think the minimum that I must say to your Lordships is that the new clause does go further than the existing provisions in providing a mechanism for the borough and district councils to designate a single council to act as the focal point for research and for the collection, analysis and dissemination of information. This mechanism is similar to that in Clause 47, dealing with arrangements for collective funding of voluntary bodies.
The new clause provides for a simple majority of boroughs and districts to make a scheme, designating a lead council to undertake research and intelligence functions, with expenditure under the scheme subject to the approval of a two-thirds majority. It also provides a mechanism for the apportionment of a designated council's costs.
Thus, the new clause which I have tabled in this amendment retains the essential features of the existing Clause 86 and adds some valuable new ones. Boroughs and districts will be able to use the provisions in this new clause to make arrangements so that they may continue to collect and have access to information on a consistent London or county-wide basis. It will be for them to take a view of the type of information which they consider valuable. It may be that existing computer facilities and data bases will need to be transferred to the residuary bodies while appropriate longer-term arrangements for these services are being worked out.
I am happy to table this amendment. I have already read out in full a letter welcoming its provisions from the London Boroughs Association and I hope that your Lordships will welcome it in the same spirit. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I am sorry, but certainly I cannot possibly welcome this new clause. One reason why I am speaking to it now—and I shall do so briefly—is because the Minister brought it in aid when we were discussing the scientific and technological amendments, but it did not seem right at that point to go into the ins and outs of this question because we were in fact discussing those amendments. I think I am right in saying that the Minister did not actually move it or speak to it: he just referred to it in passing. He did not say he was going to speak to it. Exactly the same sort of thing occurred on Clause 47, bringing in the two-thirds majority and so on. I only wish that we could stimulate as much interest in this, to help make it successful in a Division, so that it may receive an "endowment fund", but there are not enough of us present tonight to be able to promote that point.
To be serious, I shall not quote at this stage from the Select Committee proceedings because that matter was gone through fairly thoroughly previously. What I am concerned about is that under this clause the collection of information and the retention of research at the proper county level will be at best ineffective and, at the very least, potentially damaging. This, like Clause 47 in a different context, is relying on district co-operation despite the fact that boroughs and districts have different policies and priorities. I think that that provides an even greater argument against because the districts have very little knowledge or experience of the more sophisticated data and research requirements, for example, of modern highways and all sorts of other functions and services which need to be retained at county level.
As we heard in the debate on the other amendments, the uncertainty over the specialist services is causing expert staff to leave both the GLC and the metropolitan county areas for jobs elsewhere. To rely on this new clause in order to back up the alleged Government support for the other

283
amendments is entirely wrong. Report stage will certainly be the time to move an amendment or amendments on this clause because at the moment this proposal is just not good enough.
Lord Elton: I must say that even at this late hour I am very disappointed in the noble Baroness's reaction to this amendment because it is entirely negative and entirely pessimistic. The noble Baroness should bear with me for a moment, and look at this matter in the light of recent events. This is a scheme which can be made mandatory by the voluntary agreement of a majority of the boroughs; and the majority of the boroughs have already written to us to say that they want to set up the scheme. So why the noble Baroness thinks it will not happen I do not know. The only other disappointment she can have is in believing that the people concerned are incapable of running the scheme when they have it. That seems to me to ignore the scale of operation of the London boroughs as we know them, and the availability of the expertise which we discussed at some length earlier this afternoon to be put into this sort of organisation.
We spent a great deal of time saying how good and valuable it is. We now have a place where it could potentially go. We have an assurance that it will go there. There is not a lot more that the noble Baroness can be given, I am afraid. I shall be interested to see her amendments at Report stage, but I am glad that she is prepared to allow the amendment to go into the Bill in its present form at this stage.
Baroness Birk: I cannot do anything else about that. It is beyond my control. It is not because I want it to go in. But I am absolutely certain that when it was referred to earlier in Committee many Members of the Committee were then concentrating on the other amendments and probably had not read this one very thoroughly. It is not a good enough alternative. To put the specialist services into a residuary body for the time being is one thing; but I think the Minister will find that I shall not be alone in my opposition to putting them into something like this. I shall not repeat myself all over again because I think everyone is getting very tired.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Research and collection of information.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 86 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: Clause 86 has now been replaced, with however little benefit of the approval of the noble Baroness opposite, by the amendment that we have just accepted. So I ask your Lordships that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86 negatived.
Lord Denham: I think that this is the place to which we hoped to get tonight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Clwyd County Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  LIMITED DRUGS LIST: APPEAL MECHANISM
  LIMITED DRUGS LIST: APPEAL MECHANISM
  PHARMACISTS' REMUNERATION
  PHARMACISTS' REMUNERATION
  BADGERS: SELSDON PARK GOLF COURSE
  BADGERS: SELSDON PARK GOLF COURSE