Sitting of 14 October 1985

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Football Matches: Alcohol Controls
Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 intend to adjust the arrangements for controlling the consumption of alcohol in relation to football matches in England and Wales in the light of recent developments and of experience over a longer period in Scotland.
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government do not exclude the possibility of making some amendments to the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc) Act 1985 in the public order legislation which we hope to bring forward shortly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Are the Government broadly satisfied that their intentions in the recent legislation for England and Wales are being carried out, in view of reports that various loopholes have been found enabling alcohol to be consumed at matches?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we would not accept that the loophole which has been described in some parts of the press and elsewhere actually exists. The particular provision to which the reports have referred was one which was deliberately included in the legislation to provide the necessary element of flexibility.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister indicate to the House the type of matters that would be covered by the public order Bill that he mentioned? Would he also tell the House how he thinks, from the data given to him, that the present Act is operating in doing what we hoped that it would?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, so far as concerns the present Act the noble Lord will be aware that the football season has only just begun and it is really too early to draw any final conclusions on the matter, although we are encouraged by the certain limited evidence that we have so far. With regard to the content of the legislation which is to come forward in due course, that is still being considered carefully and in detail and clearly I cannot anticipate that consideration.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that last July this House was given far too little time to get through the proper duties of a revising Chamber? There were all the pressures to complete the different stages of that Bill by August. It is likely that we are
338
going to have problems one after the other, in the light of practice.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think I agree that the House was not given sufficient time, although I recognise that the Bill was taken through fairly swiftly; but it was necessary to get the Bill on the statute book in time for the season which has just begun.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not want to press the noble Lord the Minister unreasonably; but could he indicate, as I asked him to, the kind of matters which are under consideration for inclusion in the public order Bill? One does not anticipate of course that the noble Lord the Minister would tell us what the decisions were, but may I ask what is under consideration?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord, as he understands, any detailed description of what the Bill will contain, but clearly some of the shortcomings to which people have pointed in the Act which is the subject of this Question will need to be considered as to whether they should be corrected by this Bill.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is it possible for the noble Lord to put the proposition to the Minister for Sport that it might be worthwhile contacting the officials of both the Rugby Union and the Rugby League to ask them for their advice on why in both sorts of rugby football we never get this kind of appalling behaviour?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I dare say that the noble Lord is as well able to draw conclusions on the matters that he puts to me as I am. However, there is no present intention to extend the legislation to those other sports.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the earlier legislation in Scotland of about five years ago has, on the whole, proved to be effective?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I am aware that there is considerable satisfaction about the effect of the legislation in Scotland, but they have the benefit of a different legal system.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that noble Lords involved in debating the Bill when it was passing through this Chamber in July are grateful to him for reinforcing the Government's undertakings given at that time that the workings of the new Act would be kept under review with a view to possible amendment in the public order Bill? Is he also aware that we are grateful that he has taken to task some of the media for the irresponsible way in which they reported the fact that football clubs were applying for licences to sell alcohol under the provisions of the Bill as deliberately intended, and that no loopholes were found because that was not the ball game anyway?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those observations. His intervention

339
underlines what I said earlier, that the provision in the Bill for the granting of certain exemptions by magistrates was designed to provide an important element of flexibility, and so far we have nothing on which to disagree with that conclusion.

Pacific Nuclear Free Zone
2.42 p.m.
Lord Brockway: 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 co-operate with the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and six Pacific Island states to establish a nuclear free zone in the Pacific and use their influence to gain the endorsement of all the nuclear weapon powers.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have noted with considerable interest the conclusion of the Treaty of Raratonga by the countries of the South Pacific Forum, and are studying the text of the treaty and its draft protocols. It will be for individual governments to reach a view on the desirability of ratifying the treaty or acceding to the protocols.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask whether she agrees that this is an important and responsible contribution to the peace of the world? Would she confirm that over 250 nuclear devices have been detonated in the Pacific by the East and West since 1946, and that since 1974 some 61 underground tests have been detonated by France? Is the noble Baroness also aware that the United States is flying dummies from California, 4,200 miles away, to the largest atoll in the Pacific, Kwaj-Alein, and has exiled the population from that island and made it a slum in the Pacific?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government's general view on nuclear weapon free zones is that their establishment in certain parts of the world could contribute to regional security, to non-proliferation and to disarmament in general. I cannot comment on the point about the numbers of nuclear devices, but on French testing in the South Pacific the United Kingdom understand the reasons for the French tests, while at the same time we recognise the strong regional concerns about matters of nuclear testing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether this matter is likely to be on the agenda of the Commonwealth Conference in the Bahamas which starts on Wednesday? Can she tell us specifically—if the Prime Minister is approached by the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Australia on this subject—whether Her Majesty's Government can say that they oppose the testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, thousands of miles away from this country and from France? Furthermore, can she be clearer in relation to the pact to which she referred in her first Answer? As I understand it, Her Majesty's
340
Government are to be invited with four other governments to sign the protocol. Can she say whether we are proposing to sign the protocol or not?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if not formally on the agenda for CHOGM, this is a matter that may be discussed in the margins of the meeting. As far as nuclear testing in the South Pacific is concerned, we believe that the best way to resolve the problem of testing is to work towards a total ban through the conference on disarmament at Geneva. I can confirm that we have not been formally asked to sign the ratification of the protocols.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, can the Minister confirm, for the enlightenment of the noble Lord opposite, that the greatest nuclear presence in the Pacific Ocean is that of the Soviet Union, with 30 nuclear powered and nuclear firing submarines, with over 120 nuclear bombers and two major nuclear bases at Vladivostok and Cam Ranh? Can she for the benefit of the House give some estimate of what she thinks the chances are of getting the Soviet Union to dismantle all that presence in the interests of bringing the Pacific Ocean into line with the Greater London Council?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not in a position to confirm all the figures the noble Lord has given. I think he has strayed slightly beyond the terms of the Question, but I very much take the point he made in the second part of his question because I think it is a real issue. As I have indicated, we are still studying this matter.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it not a case that if we stop testing our own weapons in America there might be some chance of persuading the French to stop testing their weapons in Muroroa, but otherwise there is not a chance at all?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have already given the Government's view on the French testing in the South Pacific.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I believe the noble Baroness was asked whether the Prime Minister, if she were invited by the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand to do so, would agree to back this idea and that the Minister answered that the best way to stop testing everywhere was a general test ban. The Prime Minister is also to have a meeting with NATO Prime Ministers and Presidents and the President of the United States. Will she with the help of the other European Prime Ministers at that meeting urge the President of the United States to resume the negotiations, which the United States broke off, on a general test ban?
Baroness Young: My Lords, this House will have a good opportunity to debate the whole question of a comprehensive test ban treaty as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has an Unstarred Question on this matter down for next week.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her supplementary answer to the Question of my noble friend Lord Brockway was an

341
important and encouraging one? Will she explain to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that the boundaries of the Soviet Union brush on the Pacific Ocean and those of the Greater London Council do not? In these circumstances, as we seem to be making a little progress on this topic, will the noble Baroness go further in answer to the question from over here and indicate that the Government not only are in favour of what is happening in the Pacific but would themselves like to join in?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the position of the Government is that we have only just officially received the text of the treaty but not the protocols from the South Pacific Forum. It will be for the forum to decide how and when to approach the nuclear weapon states on the question of ratification. The answer to the original Question, to which the noble Lord referred, is that we believe that the establishment of nuclear weapon free zones in certain parts of the world could contribute to regional security, but this is a view conditioned by nuclear weapons not already being a feature of the security of the region and all states concerned being prepared to participate on the basis of agreements freely entered into and in keeping with internationally recognised principles.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take another question from me? I appreciate her answers. Is she aware that, in addition to the demolition of beautiful islands largely beyond repair, the effects of radio active elements are continuing; that in the Marshall Islands babies have been born so deformed that they are hardly human; and that 96 per cent. of those who were 12 when the American test took place are now suffering from thyroid tumours? Is it any wonder that the areas concerned should be asking for a cessation of these detonations?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes. I have made clear that we understand the strong regional concern about nuclear testing and the Government's view on the best way of dealing with this matter.

Board and Lodging Payments: Legal Ruling
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: 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 action they propose to take regarding the time limit on board and lodging payments by the DHSS in view of the ruling by Mr. Justice Mann that such restrictions were illegal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has appealed against the High Court ruling, and the Court of Appeal hearing has been fixed for 25th and 26th November. We are considering what further steps should be taken.
Baroness Jeger: But, my Lords, is it not a fact, in the view of this Government on law and order, that the judgment of the High Court should be obeyed pending an appeal? May I ask the noble Minister whether she has seen the ruling by Mr. Justice Mann, as reported in the Financial Times of 1st August, where he refused a request by the DHSS for a stay of implementation and confirmed that time limits for moving on had been quashed by the judgment? Therefore, surely, if this Government are to obey the judgment of the High Court, they cannot pursue the regulations which the High Court has deemed illegal.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there have been a number of decisions by tribunals declaring the financial limits invalid following the Cotton ruling. The chief adjudication officer has appealed against these decisions. As is the normal practice where such appeals are made, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has suspended the implementation of the tribunals' awards pending the outcome of the appeals.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister on this point but I was not talking about tribunal findings: my Question was about a High Court judgment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have obeyed the High Court judgment and, as I said in my original reply, we are waiting to see what is the outcome of the appeal.

Hospital Kitchens: Hygiene
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, in the sad absence of my noble friend Lord Ennals, who is in hospital, he has requested me to beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement following the recent reports on hygiene in hospital kitchens.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like first to say that I wish the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, a very speedy recovery from his broken leg. I had thought that his very unlucky break might be my lucky break!
We are most concerned about these reports. The maintenance of standards is the responsibility of health authorities, who are expected to comply with the food hygiene regulations. Our guidance states clearly that environmental health officers should have open access to hospital catering departments and that their recommendations be considered and acted upon promptly.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said. The recommendations suggest that they should be acted upon promptly, which causes me to ask what steps are taken when they are not acted upon. Is there not unfortunate and sad evidence that many of those recommendations have

343
not been acted upon, at least in the case of 97 really dirty hospitals?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should not argue about the numbers involved because in all cases they have not been proved. However, a number of initiatives are being pursued. First, we have written to regional health authorities reiterating the need to ensure the highest possible standards of hygiene. Secondly, all claims are being investigated and, in the light of this, consideration is being given to strengthening our guidance on procedures and the need for further training. Thirdly, a series of hygiene check lists is being introduced for use by both environmental health officers and staff in catering departments.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend help me a little on this point? Is it not true that, if the number of people who died as a result of the Bradford incident had been eating at a private restaurant, the manager would have been "inside" for a very long time? Furthermore, does this not lead to the view that there is a need for the reduction of Crown privilege in hospitals, so that people who are really careless and sloppy with their hygiene may be prosecuted, and prosecuted as they would be if they were in ordinary outside employment?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for State for Health has made it very clear that all evidence of unhygienic food handling and pest infestation will be dealt with urgently. It would be wrong at this stage to reach the conclusion that lifting Crown immunity is the only answer. This option has not been ruled out. Prosecution would take place after the event: we in the Government are determined that such events simply shall not occur.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please be prepared to consider asking the Secretary of State if he in turn will consider that the staff of all health regions are serviced by their representatives—namely, the Royal College, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the British Medical Association? I am reliably informed that they would willingly help in any way whatsoever so that these things which are happening can be brought to the attention of the authorities immediately and then dealt with. They are working on the spot. They should be taken into the full confidence of the health authority, and I believe that that should be enforced by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this is, of course, a matter for the health authorities. It is a matter for them whom they wish to consult, but I am sure that they consult everybody they feel can help in this situation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister if it is not a very worrying situation that strains of salmonella are becoming resistant to antibiotics? Would it not be advisable for health authorities to lay before Parliament and the public annually a report on their kitchens?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, reports of salmonella are indeed worrying. Whether health authorities should make a report annually would be a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I shall bring this to his notice.

Business: Statement on PLO Meeting
2.58 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the great public importance of the Foreign Secretary's decision not to see the two PLO representatives today, and also in view of the fact that the House of Commons is not sitting, can the noble Viscount the Leader of the House tell us whether a Statement is to be made here?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I know no more of this matter than noble Lords will know as stated in the press. However, I shall consult with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and with my noble friend the Minister of State, and if it would be helpful to the House and there is information to give then of course I shall be prepared to ensure that there is a Statement tomorrow.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.

Business Statement
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Transport Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and that during the adjournment the prayer to annul the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1985 will be taken.

Associated British Ports (Port of Ayr) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Long: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Associated British Ports (Port of Ayr). I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Long.)
On Question, Bill read a first time; ordered to be printed, and, pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Church of Scotland Trust (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Long: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, I beg to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private

345
Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to a Church of Scotland Trust (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Long.)
On Question, Bill read a first time; ordered to be printed, and, pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Transport Bill
3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
During the Committee stage debate on National Bus Company pensions I undertook to meet, during the week before Report stage, the Peers who had spoken on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Gridley and that if noble Lords attending that meeting wished then the clause would be recommitted at Report stage. That meeting took place on Wednesday of last week, and on request I agreed that the clause should be recommitted.
A proposal was also put at that meeting that the recommittal should be first business today, or first business on Wednesday, which would be acceptable also. On behalf of the Government, I pointed out that this would mean taking the recommittal out of order in the Bill but I undertook to consult and to let Peers know how we could proceed. As a consequence, the Motion is standing in my name on the Order Paper. If your Lordships agree to the Motion it will mean that the House will go into Committee (on Recommitment) to consider Clause 52. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 52; and that Standing Order No. 44 be dispensed with to enable the Report to be taken on the same day as the Committee (on Recommitment)—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) upon the Bill in respect of Clause 52.
Moved, That the. House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) in respect of Clause 52.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 52 [Pensions for employees of related companies]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved the following amendment:
Page 48, line 3, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall guarantee that in respect of service with the National Bus Company or one of its subsidiary
346
Companies participants shall receive at normal retirement date pensions no less than those which they were entitled to receive at normal retirement date on the day the National Bus Company and its subsidiary Companies ceased to operate.")
The noble Lord said: This is perhaps an appropriate moment before we start our formal proceedings to welcome new faces on to the Government Front Bench, two of whom I see opposite me at the moment. I wish them an interesting and entertaining stay on the Government Front Bench.
A noble Lord: A short one!
Lord Tordoff: The length of that depends on when the Prime Minister calls the next election, I suspect.
I rise to move this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Banks, and I do so because within the last hour I have heard that unfortunately my noble friend is indisposed. He offers his apologies to your Lordships for not being here to move the amendment on his own behalf. Because of the short notice that I have had of this fact, your Lordships will understand that I can do little more than move the amendment formally.
First of all, I think we ought to say that we are grateful to the Government for their agreement to recommit this clause because it is a contentious matter—some would say the most contentious matter in the Bill outside the Second Reading. I think that the principles of the problem of pensions were well discussed at Committee stage on amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, by my noble friend and by others. I understand, although I was not at any of the meetings that were called during the Recess, being myself out of the country at the time, that no final resolution has been reached on this issue.
The Government have made certain suggestions to the National Bus Company and the National Bus Company has made certain suggestions to the Government. They have each rejected the other's suggestions. But I think that at the root of this is an important matter of principle. As we said at the Committee stage, this is a question of whether current employees of the National Bus Company shall have the sort of guarantees which have been given in other cases when public bodies have been privatised, to secure the pensions of current employees and existing pensioners. I know that it is a matter of concern on all sides of the House and not just on the Opposition Benches that guarantees of this sort should be sought.
Your Lordships will remember that at Committee stage the Government suggested that there were possible routes through insurance methods of guaranteeing the future of these pensions. I understand that certain recommendations have been made by the Government and that certain proposals have been made by insurance companies which would go some way towards that. But I also understand that this would probably cause a change of benefit in the longer term and that the indexation of these benefits would not be the same as that expected by the employees.
Having said that, I think I must leave the Floor to other noble Lords who are much more expert in this subject than I am. I am deeply sorry that my noble friend Lord Banks is not here, because I am sure your Lordships will agree that nobody in this House is more

347
expert than he on this subject. Therefore, I formally move the amendment to Clause 52.
Lord Belstead: May I express my regret that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, cannot be here today but may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for moving this amendment. It fulfils the promise to recommit the NBC pensions clause at this further stage, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for setting the matter up by tabling this amendment. It reflects the importance which the House attaches to this issue. I thought that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if early on in this discussion I said just a few words in reply to the amendment.
On the noble Lord's amendment we are talking about the two NBC pension funds, that known as the NBPF for the salaried grades and that known as BEST for the wages grade staff. We are talking about the benefits that will have accrued for staff in those funds up to the time when the National Bus Company is dissolved; that is, benefits which are accruing for staff while working for the NBC, preserved benefits for those who have left the NBC but have kept an entitlement in the funds to be paid as a pension when they retire, and, of course, benefits due to staff who have retired and are receiving pensions. And we are concerned with the security for these funds and for the security of members of the funds once NBC is dissolved.
This amendment calls for a guarantee which the Government really cannot give. It would be an open-ended commitment of taxpayers' money and in that respect it would go further than NBC does already. Rather than tie the Government to an organisation which it is intended, after all, to privatise, surely the right way to proceed is to ensure that the funds of the pension schemes are adequate to provide for the accrued benefits. That is the reason why last July I repeated the Government's clear undertaking to eliminate any deficiencies in either of the funds which a fresh actuarial valuation on a prudent, reasonable basis might reveal. At the same time, I spoke of the possibility of the trustees obtaining still further security for the funds through private sector insurance. During the Recess the Department of Transport set up a joint working party. It consisted of a representative of the department, a representative of the Government Actuary's Department, the group pensions manager of NBC and his actuarial adviser. They had discussions with no fewer than 10 insurance companies and I am very glad to say that these discussions have borne fruit. Several preliminary quotes have been submitted and it is clear that at present insurance can be purchased within the value of the funds' assets for the accrued liabilities in the funds.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the backing of a major insurance company or a group would give reassurance to members of both funds, an outcome that many of us had hoped for. That insurance cover appears to be available now, but we cannot be sure whether it might be available on anything like the same terms in three years' time when NBC comes to be wound up. NBC, however, have represented that an early settlement would create difficulties for the trustees, difficulties of realising some of their assets,
348
especially in property; and difficulty as regards being sure of the contributions needed for the insurance cover to be extended to the entitlements which NBC employees will be accruing over the next three years right up to the time of privatisation.
We have therefore written to the National Bus Company with the following proposals, which I trust they have passed on to the trustees. First, that the trustees should, if they see fit, seek an early arrangement with an insurance company to give certainty to the beneficiaries of the funds. However, recognising the financing difficulties to which I have referred, we further propose that the NBC should agree to make a bridging loan available to the trustees. In this way, if ready cash proved to be a problem for the trustees then the NBC would solve it. Thirdly, there remains the question of paying for insurance for the three years right up to privatisation. Here we propose that the NBC should undertake to the trustees to provide whatever additional finance is needed by way of employers' contributions to buy insurance for the benefits that will accrue up to the time that staff have to leave the NBC's employment. That means that staff can be absolutely assured that their benefits for all their time with the NBC, right up to privatisation, will be insured. The insurance itself, of course, would carry on right up to the death of the very last beneficiary.
This represents a considerable financial commitment. Your Lordships will recall that some of the benefits in BEST are index-linked, not to prices but to national average earnings, which are usually higher than prices. For those benefits we propose insurance on the basis of a link with prices plus a fixed figure of 1½ per cent. This would give the certainty that a fund member's benefit would always run well ahead of inflation; and on behalf of the Government I made clear in our last debate that we would examine this possibility. On the best professional advice available to the Government, we believe that increases in benefits based on retail prices plus 1½ per cent. can properly be described as equivalent to increases linked to national average earnings.
On that point I would say this. It is worth noting that the BEST scheme was set up in 1974, and over the lifetime of that scheme there have been five years in which the increase in earnings has exceeded the increase in prices by more than 1½ per cent. and five years when prices plus 1½ per cent. have exceeded the increase in earnings. I do not pretend that those figures are conclusive although, as it happens, a pension fund member would have been marginally better off under the prices plus 1½ per cent. alternative. But I hope that your Lordships will feel, as I do, that the proposed basis for insurance really is broadly equivalent to the existing provisions in BEST. So these proposals mean that benefits linked to the retail price index—that is the basis for uprating all those who are receiving pensions in both NBPF and BEST, and it is the basis for the other benefits in NBPF—will all remain quite unchanged, covered by insurance. But those benefits in BEST which are expressed in terms of increase in average earnings can be covered by insurance in terms of the retail price index plus 1½ per cent. uprating.
When, on behalf of my right honourable friend, I put the Government's proposal verbally to the trustees, it was suggested to me that our proposal

349
would be legally improper, and of course the Government had to delay confirming that offer until they were satisfied on this point. The Government have taken counsel's opinion, and the opinion we have is that the offer can perfectly properly be made to the trustees.
Finally, I would emphasise that it is for the trustees to take the action that they consider to be in the best interests of their members. I hope your Lordships will feel that the Government have genuinely tried to make a fair and equitable solution available. We are all aware that it is the members of the funds whose welfare we are considering. It is with them first in mind that the Government have expressed themselves willing to see the NBC (which, after all, the Government will ultimately be selling) enter into the financial commitments I have outlined. We are doing this in order to ensure that the position of members of the funds is fully safeguarded.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: I think that, first, expressions of appreciation must be addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for having honoured the commitment he made in Committee that this very important matter would be recommitted prior to Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will understand that some of us are in particular difficulties, because he himself referred to a meeting held last Wednesday, when he made it very clear to me and to others that it was not in the Government's mind to take the recommittal this day but that it was to be taken later. Therefore, some of us had put this very important matter aside, in terms of the consideration of other amendments which we are going to deal with later, when we get to the Report stage.
Our difficulties are enhanced by the very sad absence of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. We were relying on the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to make the major case in regard to the issue that is now before the Committee; but the Committee is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his exposition on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
The proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has put to the Committee were only available to the trustees of the two funds some time last Tuesday. I had the good fortune to see officials in that regard, but without the benefit of their advice. However, in the very short period—and this is a crucial decision for the trustees—I have had conversations with them; and they have also sought legal and actuarial advice.
I perceive in the proposal only one element of benefit to the members of the pension fund, which is that unlike their present scheme, which of course depends upon the performance of the managers of the pension fund, they can look forward to pensions based upon RPI plus 1½ per cent. However, that is very considerably less than the benefits that they could expect to receive under the very careful and responsible management of their present funds. The present funds would provide pension benefits considerably superior to those within the Government's suggestion, and it has to be a suggestion to the trustees as a solution of this matter.
Over a number of years the Government have made it very clear that they are not in the game of reducing
350
the benefits of the pensioners or of the members of pension schemes. There was a speech in, I think, 1982 in which the Minister of State, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, said that it would be quite immoral for the Government in any way to take such action as would reduce the benefits of a scheme. Let us be very clear what we are talking about. It is a scheme of benefits for which members have paid in their period of service up to the date of the dissolution of the National Bus Company. It is no more and no less than that. The Government have repeated that from time to time.
The Minister will know that I questioned the Government actuary as to whether the Goverment's proposals were comparable to what is now available to the members of the scheme and his answer was, "Yes". I have to say that the advisers and actuaries to the pension fund take a very different view. Therefore we are in this difficulty, that professionals who advise the Government and those who advise the pension fund are in dispute. I think I can understand that because one is looking over a period of time. I have seen the Government's proposals in the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has sent to some of your Lordships. I hope that he will make that letter available either in Hansard or in the Printed Paper Office.
Alternatively, I wonder whether it is possible between now and Third Reading for a paper to be put in the Printed Paper Office setting out the Government actuary's view, which is a clear one, and the view of one of the other actuaries, to see if there is some degree of agreement as to whether the outturn is, as the Government say, broadly equivalent. That would be very helpful and I should have thought that it could be done between now and Third Reading. But at the present moment the advisers to the trustees take the view that what the Government are proposing does not rank in any way equivalent to what the members themselves have subscribed for and would have expected to receive on the dissolution of the National Bus Company.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that various proposals have been made to the National Bus Company. I am authorised to read—with the permission of your Lordships, because this is a matter to which we shall need to come back—certain parts of a letter that has been sent to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State by the chairman of the National Bus Company dealing, first, with the attitude of the pensions committee and, secondly, with that of the board. This ought to be known within this Committee.
The chairman wrote as follows:
"I have to advise that, for the following reasons, the Pensions Committee was unable to accept your proposals.

1. The proposals will not ensure payment of present accrued pension entitlements.

2. Securing benefits under BEST and NBPF by insurance is an expensive means of obtaining security and an inefficient means of investing the assets. Insurance may be justified when NBC is dissolved, if at that time there are no other more efficient means of providing security for payment of benefits. Committing"—

as are the Government's proposals—
"the assets of the funds to such an expensive and inefficient form of investment before it has become necessary, and before knowing whether or not there are other cheaper and more efficient means of providing security, cannot be justified.

3. Whether benefits linked over a period of time to RPI plus 1½%are, or are not, equivalent to benefits linked to national average

351
earnings over that period will not be known until that period of time has elapsed. Nobody can say that the two are equivalent. NBC does not have power to make alterations to the pension schemes' rules which could prejudice accrued benefits, without the consent of the Trustees and the written authority from each individual beneficiary.

4. In the case of NBPF the proposals imply that employees transferred to successor companies would become entitled to leaving service deferred pensions (assuming this is what is meant by preserved benefits). In this event a transfer value paid to a new scheme, in lieu of those deferred benefits, would be insufficient to buy equivalent years of pensionable service. Assuming a new scheme identical to NBPF such arrangements could give rise to a loss of 50% or more in pensionable service.".

The letter then goes on:
"The proposals in your letter were then considered by the members of the National Bus Company at their meeting on Thursday. 10 October. The members had the benefit of having at their meeting:

1. The Chairman of the Pensions Committee—Mr. I Dalton;

2. The Chairman of the Pensions Fund Management Committees—Mr. B. C. Sellars;

3. The Group Pensions Manager—Mr. W. A. Walker,

4. The independent consulting Actuary—Mr. R. D. Masding. The members also had the benefit of a letter from the pension funds' lawyers—a copy of which is enclosed for your information."

That is to the Minister.
3.30 p.m.
Perhaps I may break off to read an extract of that letter which is to Mr. Sellars, chairman of the trustees of the National Bus Company's funds. It reads:
"Any proposal to vary benefits must involve the trustees in assessing the value of the proposed new benefits as compared with the value of the existing benefits. Any proposal to make a fundamental change in investment policy must, even where the sponsoring employer is making the proposal, involve the trustees in assessing their ability to provide the present scale of benefits under NBPF and BEST (including the possibility of providing greater benefits) as compared with any greater security provided by insurance and the cost of that security. The commitment regarding sufficiency of resources to be received from NBC in return should be viewed in the light of the trustees' perception of the funds' ability to provide the present scale of benefits".
It goes on:
"I also understand that it is being suggested that the trustees should respond to this proposal and effect the insurance within a matter of a few weeks. As I have said to you previously, any proposal along these lines will require the most careful and detailed consideration by the trustees and will, in particular, require an investigation into the present financial position of the two funds".
It then goes on:
"I consider it would be irresponsible for the trustees to rush into a hasty and irrevocable decision on a matter of this importance especially since, on present evidence, the proposals involve no clear advantages to the beneficiaries. It would be equally wrong for the Government, NBC or any other party to pressure them into doing so".
That is a very clear statement from a most reputable firm of legal advisers.
I go on with the letter from the chairman to the Minister:
"The NBC members considered the proposals of your letter"—
which have been set out by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—
"with great care but were unable to ignore the opinion of the pension funds' lawyers that it would be irresponsible for the Trustees to pursue an early insurance solution to this problem—along the lines you propose—and wrong for NBC to put pressure on the Trustees to agree to such an arrangement.
The members were also unable to accept that the accrued benefit entitlements of BEST be changed retrospectively to substitute a
352
basis of indexing which might be prejudicial; or that the Trustees be persuaded to follow an investment policy requiring the assets to be converted to insurance policies which, in practice, would give effect to this substituted basis of indexing without the need to amend the rules; or that in the case of NBPF that active members be provided only with leaving service benefits and that the investment policy to be followed should have that as its objective".
Mr. Brook, the chairman of the company, goes on:
"As you would expect, members were concerned at the lack of statutory protection and that NBC had been unable to give reassurances to its employees and pensioners. As an expression of good faith, the following resolution—which I am quite sure will not cause any problems for the Government and which I also believe you will agree to be the bare minimum action that any responsible employer could take, pending a solution acceptable to all concerned—was therefore passed.
The National Bus Company insofar that it has rights under the Trust Deeds of the National Bus Pension Fund and the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust to give notice to terminate its contributions to those funds, hereby undertakes that it will not invoke those rights before a decision regarding the future of the funds, arising out of the provisions of the Transport Bill for the dissolution of NBC, has been reached to the satisfaction of NBC and the Trustees of the funds.
This resolution was agreed only after hearing the representative of the consulting actuaries on the subject and after having had an opportunity to question him".
I have read that letter out and I am glad that the Committee has borne with me in reading it but we have a situation where the Government, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, have made their own efforts to seek a resolution to a very difficult problem. Many of us see it as an act of justice that those who are in the pension funds should be able to receive the sums and benefits for which they have paid up to and not beyond the date at which NBC becomes privatised. The Government have made their proposals. I can only say that most of us received the undertakings given by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, quite genuinely. We believed that there was a solution to the problem and that what we were seeking to achieve in Committee could be obtained, but in truth what the Government are putting before us really means that the members—it is true that those who are already pensioned will not be in any way affected—who over the years have contributed to their pension schemes will not receive like with like under the Government's proposals. That is what we had hoped for and that is what we had expected when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave his very clear assurances to us in Committee.
I do not believe that this is the end of the chapter. I believe that something can still be resolved in this matter. Whether your Lordships' Committee by a vote will help us I do not know, but I hope that the Government will understand that this is something which in honour Parliament ought to resolve and that those who have made their contributions to their funds should receive what they expected to receive when they made their contributions. It is nothing more or less than that. The Government's proposals give some certainty, but I have to say to the Government that I do not think that they balance what are the losses or will be perceived as the losses of those who are members of the pension fund. Whether we should proceed on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I do not know. I still hope that a resolution to this problem can be found. It must be unsatisfactory because here we have a viable and successful company being placed

353
for political reasons in a different stance. Surely it is wrong that the employees should have to pay the price for such a move.
I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of your Lordships' House either formally or informally with the Government to find some solution to this matter. I have to say that the Government proposals do not find support within the National Bus Company, and there is grave anxiety among those with whom I have consulted outside in that respect. How we proceed on this recommittal is entirely up to the Members of the Committee, but I hope that whatever is decided today will not be the end of the pursuit of a solution for what I would call an act of justice for the employees of the National Bus Company who are in fact employees of the state.
Lord Mottistone: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he help the Committee in one respect? I listened with great care to his splendid explanation of the situation as he saw it. As I understood him, the noble Lord was saying that if the Government's proposals are accepted then the people who are not at the moment pensioned—those who will be pensioned in the future—will be deprived of superior benefits. However, I did not receive any indication from the noble Lord's remarks of what are the superior benefits that such people would be denied. Can he clarify that point?
Lord Shepherd: My understanding is—though I may rely upon the Minister, who has a greater brief than I have—that under the Government's proposals, those who are already pensioners and those who will come within pension in the period between the passing of the Bill and three years later will have all the security and all the benefits which exist under the present scheme. Within a pension scheme it is of course the members who create the ability to pay existing pensions. It is they, according to my advice, who will be the greatest sufferers.
Perhaps I may add that the Government are proposing as a way out for the trustees to meet their scheme that the trustees should be able to borrow from the National Bus Company funds to cover those parts of their existing assets, such as property, which clearly will take time to dispose of. The trustees may borrow but they will have to pay interest. So one has a situation where the members will be paying interest on a scheme to create liquidity in order to be able to purchase through the insurance organisation at an early date the necessary benefits for the members.
The advice that I have is that the proposal will be detrimental to a very broad section of the membership of the fund—not pensioners, but members of the fund—who are contributing but who have an expectation and who, in a sense, have an investment in the pension fund.
Lord Mottistone: I understand what the noble Lord has just said but he has not really answered my question. What are the benefits which the members will be deprived of? What are the superior benefits which they would reasonably expect?
Lord Shepherd: I understand that the existing schemes are based upon national average earnings.
354
That is to be swept aside and the proposed scheme is now to be based upon RPI plus 1·5 per cent. That, in the judgment of actuaries, would be detrimental to the benefits for the members of the fund.
Lord Mottistone: Is the noble Lord speaking of financial benefits or benefits in kind such as the sum which a widow would receive, and so on? Or is it just the ability of the trustees to pay the members the kind of income that they could otherwise be expected to pay?
Lord Shepherd: The noble Lord has got it right in the end; it is the ability of the trustees to pay what they have agreed to pay.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Hood: I believe we are all agreed that the National Bus Company has a fine pension plan and that a means must be found for people to enjoy it. The question is, how? At the Committee stage in July, the possibility of insurance was discussed. At that time there was no assurance that such could be achieved, bearing in mind the escalations which are built into the plan. However, the Government have now produced a plan which in their opinion and in the opinion of the Government actuary is equivalent to the specific and complicated terms of the two plans that we are at present discussing.
Equivalence is a matter of opinion. As to the technical aspects, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, found some difficulty in understanding it all but I certainly do not. What is clear is that the plan which the Government have offered is a very fine one. A basis of 1·5 per cent. in excess of the Retail Price Index is better than any other pension plan that I have ever known and this must be remembered. The haste is inevitable. This is a business proposition. It is a proposal made by several insurance companies, based no doubt upon the present market values in the fund. In a proposal such as this, there is of necessity a limit of time. If the funds continue to increase then no doubt the proposal can be continued—but funds do not always go up.
As to the efficiency of insuring, to say that this is a real difficulty I believe to be a nonsense. There are innumerable insured pension plans up and down the country. It is true that they are usually meant for organisations smaller than the National Bus Company and that bigger companies such as the NBC have set up an administrative fund within their own organisation. However, we have to visualise the situation three years' hence when there will be no National Bus Company and when the background and continuity which supports a pension plan will no longer be there. I suspect that the trustees may have to consider whether they insure now or whether they insure in three years' time. This is a decision for them. This is their fund. If they wish to do so, then they can continue it—but they must realise the difficulties of being, if I may use the term, a residuary body of 50 years or more.
It is for the trustees to make a choice, but what I do not consider reasonable is that Her Majesty's Government should be asked to underwrite the terms

355
of the plan for 50 years, if the choice is to continue it. One must envisage that the trustees in futurum may not be as diligent as the trustees of today. If they choose to continue the fund for many years, they could speculate against an undertaking by the Government to pay the pensioners. For those reasons I cannot support the amendment, which I believe would make it very difficult for the Government to get rid of some of the wrinkles and difficulties in the present discussions with the company.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps the Committee would like me to say a word in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Hood on the proposal which has been put forward. In reply to this brief debate, perhaps I ought to say that the position at last Wednesday's meeting was that I put forward on behalf of the Government the difficulties of recommitment now, because I thought noble Lords would assume that the recommitment would be taken at the moment in the Bill when this particular clause was due to be debated. However, it was the specific request of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we should consider holding this debate as first business today or, as the noble Lord added, first business on Wednesday. I undertook to write to noble Lords, and this I did the following day. I am sorry if the noble Lord suffered a delay in receiving his letter.
This brief debate turns on one issue and on one issue only. That issue is to be found in the first statement read out by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, from the letter of the NBC chairman which was sent today to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Department of Transport and which I first saw at noon today. Nonetheless, the first thing which is said in the letter is that,
"The proposals of the Government will not ensure payment of present accrued pension entitlements"
and it is on that point that this debate turns. All I can say is that I am surprised by that assertion. If I may add to what I said about half an hour ago to your Lordships, we are only talking about the BEST scheme. The pension proposals, the actual payments of pensions in both schemes, are uprated in line with the retail price index and the benefits in the NBPF scheme are uprated in line with the retail price index. We are only talking about benefits in BEST where they are expressed in terms of an increase in average earnings. That scheme was started in 1974, just over 10 years ago.
Let me make one thing crystal clear to your Lordships. If anyone had had a benefit worth £1,000 10 years ago, let us say, in that scheme, and it had been increased in line with national average earnings since then, that benefit would now be worth £3,560. But if that same £ 1,000 had been increased in line with the retail price index plus 1½ per cent. it would today be worth £3,700.
I really cannot see how it can possibly be asserted that this basis for uprating would be other than as equivalent as it is humanly possible to make it with the arrangements for the accrued benefits in BEST. I realise that 10 years do not provide conclusive proof, but it is noticeable—I repeat, it is noticeable—how
356
close average earnings and the retail price index plus 1½ per cent. are now after a decade of the existence of the BEST scheme, a decade during which we have seen great changes in both rates of inflation and levels of earnings. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hood for saying in a very few words that the proposal put forward by the Government was a fine plan.
Finally, I should just make it clear that no one is trying to hold a pistol to the heads of the trustees. The Government cannot require them to take any particular decision. Doubtless if the trustees decide not to secure insurance at an early date it will be because they consider they can best serve the interests of their members in some other way. I would only say, as my noble friend said in his speech, that the trustees presumably will wish to assess the risk of insurance proving not to be available at a price within the assets of the funds if they decide to postpone a decision. Again, that is inevitably a matter properly for the trustees to decide rather than the Government.
Of course, I am only too ready to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said and to put into the Printed Paper Office a copy of the letter I wrote to those of your Lordships who spoke in the debate in July, so that any Member of your Lordship' House can see that letter, although I think my opening speech on behalf of the Government more or less sets that letter on the record. Nonetheless, of course I will be only too ready to put that letter into the Printed Paper Office. I do not think there is anything further that I can do except to express the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will not press the amendment.
Lord Shepherd: The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I hope will be agreeable to meeting some of us to pursue this subject between now and Third Reading, or maybe the Report stage. I hope the noble Lord will respond that way because I believe there is a solution to this matter.
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to look at the letter he wrote to me and to others in which he says the Government propose the following outline arrangements to enable the trustees at an early stage to buy insurance policy benefits the equivalent of those accrued (we have been discussing this) and that the NBC would make the loan finance available to the trustees on the same interest terms as would be available to NBC itself. I think that is quite clear.
Supposing the trustees were to decide that what the Government are proposing here was something that they could not put to their members, that it was necessary to proceed towards another solution—and as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, himself said, it is a matter for the trustees—can I take it that if the trustees (and these are responsible men; they are not speculators; they have done rather well as the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, himself has recognised) decided to find a longer-term solution, which it might be necessary for them to do, the NBC would still be able to make available loan finance which will permit the trustees to have liquidity—because so much of their assets are tied up in property? In other words, would that course be available to the trustees if they decided that the proposals of the Government are not those which they could accept but they wished to go a different way?

357
Secondly, if the NBC make available subsequently such further finance by way of employers' contributions as necessary to ensure equivalence—in other words, the board of the National Bus Company continue what is their present understanding and undertakings with the trustees—are the trustees free to make their own judgment or have they got a gun at their heads? If they do not go the Government way, is what little is being offered to be denied them, or will it still be available to them?
Lord Underhill: May I just have a brief word on this, because I am certain that, like myself, most noble Lords regard this as a human matter? We are dealing with the future financial position of 30,000 or 40,000 people arising from a decision which Parliament will be taking—and remember, it is a decision which Parliament will be taking.
Most noble Lords are in the same position as I am myself in wanting to do the best we can within proper limits. I think it would be reasonable if the noble Lord the Minister would accept the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd and arrange for such a meeting. In addition, if we could have not only the text of the NBC letter to which my noble friend referred but, in Hansard, any additional information which ought to be supplied about the proposals of the Government, that would be a great help to us in making a decision when we return to the matter at Report stage or on Third Reading. This is such a complicated human matter that I am certain all we are doing today, which is very important, is clearing the way to obtain information in order to be able to make a firm decision at the later date.
4 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: May I speak for just 60 seconds? In Committee I put my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Gridley because I had some serious anxieties, but I should like to take this opportunity of telling my noble friend the Minister that I enormously appreciate the trouble that has been taken. During the Recess I wrote expressing anxieties similar to those that I outlined during the debate and I was one of the recipients of the letter dated 10th October to which my noble friend referred. It is no bad thing that I should put on record one of the sentences in that letter, although it will be made available for other noble Lords to see. My noble friend Lord Belstead said:
"The proposals outlined in this letter provide certainty for the members of the two NBC pension funds on a basis which is equivalent to the present benefits provided by the schemes".
My noble friend said that in several different ways during his speech today. For example, he said that the new proposals mean that pension rights are fully safeguarded. Those were his exact words. I share the views very clearly and eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lord Hood. My anxieties have been set at rest. They were serious but I believe that the Government have done everything they can to meet the anxieties that have been raised, and therefore I wish to express myself contented.
Lord Belstead: Before the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, speaks finally may I reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd? The Government's offer for loan finance
358
stays open, but of course I made clear that it was in order to buy insurance at an early stage for the benefits equivalent to those being accrued, for the reasons which I have already covered not once but, I think, twice.
That brings us to the responsibility of the trustees. It is for them to judge what their funds can afford in future. We cannot take that decision for them. The offer of employers' contributions, which is an absolutely open-ended offer, for three years would be taken only after insurance is bought. I think that we should pursue this at the discussion suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I am only too ready to agree to that. It would be better sooner rather than later, and although we have a fairly full diary this week with the Bill, perhaps I could get in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, personally and in the House. That would be the best way of proceeding. I am extremely grateful for what my noble friend Lord Chelwood has just said.
Lord Tordoff: It is clear that the Government, in making the moves that they have done—and they are indeed welcome and no one in the Committee would deny it—have gone some way towards recognising the problems that were envisaged; and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, both expressed those problems perfectly well.
However, I do not go so far as does the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, who said that the Government have done everything possible, because they have not. The maximum that the Government could have done would be what is asked for in the amendment, and the Government are refusing to do that. That is what the pensioners, the National Bus Company, and others, have asked for but the Government are refusing to do that. The Government are not going as far as that. They are offering a measure which is going somewhere along that line but, frankly, no one knows how far.
I am not an insurance man, an actuary, a statistician or even a mathematician. I listened to the numbers put forward from the Government Front Bench on the position over the past 10 years. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that in those 10 years we have had rates of inflation—certainly in the early part of that time—which have been higher than anything we had known in this country. I hope that the Government are not expecting those rates of inflation to reappear because I thought that was the central plank of their policy. Therefore, the numbers put forward by the Government Front Bench are not altogether relevant to the debate today.
I am in considerable difficulty because I stand very ill-briefed and, as I said, I am not a person who is expert on this subject, as is my noble friend Lord Banks. However, it seems to me that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, are important. The fact is that the trustees are saying to your Lordships, as they are saying to the National Bus Company, "We do not know whether the proposals put forward by the Government are as good as, better or worse than, what is already written into the pension fund. We as trustees of that fund have a duty to the members of that fund not to take risks with their pensions—save only in so far as when, actuarially and as trustee managers and

359
experts in this field, we can put our hands on our hearts and say, 'yes, this is a better deal.' "
If the Government's offer were to put the trustees in that position I am sure that they would accept it. It is no skin off their noses to change the system if they genuinely believe that it is for the benefit of their members. Clearly, what they are saying to your Lordships, to the Government and to the National Bus Company, is, "We cannot be sure, but on balance we think it unlikely that the suggestions put forward by the Government will provide as good a guarantee of pensions for the members of the National Bus Company as exist at the moment". We cannot ignore that advice. The Government Actuary says one thing and, apparently, the trustees say something different. Clearly this is not something which can be argued on the Floor of the Committee. It is something which we must all in our consciences decide on before the Bill reaches its final stages.
I still believe that the Government have willed that at the end of the day the National Bus Company shall be privatised. One of the consequences of that privatisation is that the pensions of its members may be reduced in the long term. The Government are being asked to give guarantees to those pensioners equivalent to the guarantees at present given by the National Bus Company pension funds. I cannot understand why the Government are running away from their moral obligation to sustain that position. I have not heard from the Government at any stage why they are not prepared to do so. Is it because it would be too expensive? Or is it because they would prefer to use National Bus Company funds to back up the system through the insurance so that they can do their asset-stripping job on the National Bus Company at a later stage?
In my view, we are still in an uncertain position. I hope that the Government, and the Government supporters in particular, will read this debate and that out of the meeting suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, which the noble Lord the Minister has accepted, some further progress can be made. Clearly, in the circumstances it would be foolish for me to press this to a Division at this moment. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment in respect of Clause 52.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with, Report received.
4.8 p.m.
Clause 1 [Abolition of road service licensing]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
("In accordance with the transitional arrangements specified in Schedule 5 to this Act, the provisions of Part III of the 1981 Act (road service licences) shall cease to have effect after 4th April 1987 so as to ensure that:

(a) the abolition of road service licensing is completed in an orderly manner;

360

(b) the reorganisation of public sector bus companies to ensure free and fair competition as required by Parts III and IV of this Act has taken place; and

(c) the authorities responsible for service subsidies under Part V of this Act have been able to complete their arrangements to secure services that would not otherwise be available.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to take the House back to the late evening of 29th July 1985 when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, moved a whole series of amendments to Schedule 5 to the Bill. I had on the Marshalled List a large number of further amendments to Schedule 5. Your Lordships will recall that at approximately 10.40 that evening we were within an hour of completion of the lengthy six-day proceedings in Committee. Those who had the fortitude to stay in the Committee until that stage may further recall that I pleaded with the Government that this was an issue that deserved recommitment, just as they so properly agreed to recommitment of Clause 52.
Schedule 5 is absolutely critical to the content of the Bill and to its chance of success. To seek recommitment when such an important series of amendments came up at almost the 58th minute, at any rate, of the eleventh hour did not seem to me to be unreasonable, though that request was rejected by the Government. It was rejected on the grounds that all that we were proposing in these amendments was a series of changes to date. At the conclusion of that debate I said that, in the light of the Government's refusal to agree to recommitment, we would seek ways to have a better consideration of these important matters at Report stage, and I undertook to bring serious and constructive amendments to the House at that time.
I make no apology for the fact that the amendments in my name and the names of other noble Lords are very similar to the amendments that we moved in Committee, because after mature consideration we came to the conclusion that the amendments (to the timing, basically) were the best way in which to give the serious and constructive consideration which was required to this part of the Bill and to help the Government out of the pit which we believed, and still believe, they were digging for themselves. With Amendment No. 1, I make no apology for taking also Amendments Nos. 304, 308, 312 to 318, 320 to 324, 330, 333, 342, 344 and 346.
Amendment No. 304: Clause 131, page 134, line 2, at end insert ("save that the Secretary of State may by order extend each or any of the dates specified in that Schedule so as to ensure that the necessary arrangements are completed satisfactorily.").
Amendment No. 308: Schedule 5, page 152, line 38, leave out ("with 27th September 1986") and insert ("no earlier than 4th April 1987").
Amendment No. 312: Page 155, line 10, leave out ("1st March 1986") and insert ("1st October 1986").
Amendment No. 313: Page 155, line 18, leave out ("17th August 1986") and insert ("1st January 1987").
Amendment No. 314: Page 155, line 20, leave out ("28th February 1986") and insert ("30th September 1986").
Amendment No. 315: Page 155, line 27, leave out ("1st March 1986") and insert ("1st October 1986").
Amendment No. 316: Page 155, line 28, leave out ("16th August 1986") and insert ("31st December 1986").
Amendment No. 317: Page 155, line 41, leave out ("1st March 1986") and insert ("1st October 1986").
Amendment No. 318: Page 155, line 42, leave out ("27th September 1986") and insert ("4th April 1987").
Amendment No. 320: Page 156, line 30, leave out ("1st March 1986") and insert ("1st October 1987").
Amendment No. 321: Page 156, line 38, leave out ("1st March 1986") and insert ("1st October 1986").
Amendment No. 322: Page 156, line 39, leave out ("30th June 1986") and insert ("1st January 1987").
Amendment No. 323: Page 157, line 12, leave out ("1st March 1986") and insert ("1st October 1986").
Amendment No. 324: Page 157, line 13, leave out ("27th September 1986") and insert ("4th April 1987").
Amendment No. 330: Page 158, line 29, leave out ("1st April 1986") and insert ("31st January 1987").
Amendment No. 333: Page 159, line 4, leave out ("27th September 1986") and insert ("4th April 1987").
Amendment No. 342: Page 161, line 7, leave out ("until 27th September 1986") and insert ("no earlier than 4th April 1987").
Amendment No. 344: Page 161, line 25, leave out ("1st October 1986") and insert ("5th April 1987").
Amendment No. 346: Page 161, line 26, leave out ("1st April 1986") and insert ("1st October 1986").
I would make it clear that, with the exception of Amendment No. 304, to which I shall return in a few minutes, all these amendments have the same effect, which is to delay and slightly alter the transition period, so that the final date is no longer 27th September 1986 but 4th April 1987. Since there was so little time to debate the matter, I think your Lordships will forgive me if I set out the reasons for this change and why we believe that the amendments now put forward are in fact constructive amendments in that they help the Government to implement their own policies (which are not being challenged in these amendments) in a constructive, realistic and hopeful way.
The basic starting point is that in the metropolitan areas outside London another major change is going on at this time. First, there is the organisation of the passenger transport executives and the municipal bus operations at the same time as this transition period is proposed. This involves the passenger transport executives reconstituting themselves, and it involves the local authorities who run municipal bus operations being required to set them up as initial companies in order to put them at arm's length from the local authorities themselves.
The second thing that is happening in the metropolitan areas is that the new metropolitan transport authorities, as opposed to the executives, which have to take a full part in the transition period, are themselves being reorganised. Their position now is to relate to district councils rather than to the metropolitan counties, which will go out of existence at midnight on 31st March. So, as far as the metropolitan counties are concerned, one would think that on the face of it you have the virtually impossible task of making two major changes at the same time. I am not arguing this matter purely from the point of view of staff difficulties, though of course staff difficulties are very great: it has been calculated that the amount of time involved in the tendering procedure for a single route, or for X number of passenger miles, is such that in the average passenger transport authority there would need to be a planning department of about 117 staff in order to deal with the 30 million passenger miles which are likely to be involved in the tendering procedure in the average metropolitan area.
4.15 p.m.
The planning departments of the passenger transport executives do not have that number of staff, and it would be madness for them to take on additional staff for a short period when these duties and responsibilities are intended to be, and 1 do not doubt will be, temporary. To take on highly qualified people for a period of only one year in order to accelerate a procedure and to lay them off afterwards is surely not a recipe for good management.
But it is not just a question of the metropolitan areas; it is also a question of the shire counties. The shire counties will not be undergoing the great organisational change that will happen in the metropolitan areas, but they do have to work with a two-tiered local government system, which will not be the case in the metropolitan counties. The shire counties have the additional problem of dealing with the requirements of both the county councils and the district councils, because there have been amendments at Committee stage which improve the position of local authorities and improve their chances of being consulted about the services to be provided. So it is not just in the metropolitan counties but also in the shire counties that the procedures are extremely difficult, complex, and run grave risks of leading to confusion, rush and inadequate preparation.
There are additional reasons which are not related to the organisation of the transport authorities or, indeed, of the operators. There is the question of the school year, which was debated in Committee. The Government's proposal is that the change should take place when the school year has already started and that final information about what change will take place shall be available only during the summer holidays. I sometimes wonder whether the children of some of those who take part in these debates go to boarding schools rather than to state schools, where public transport is an essential part of school life, and I sometimes wonder whether they realise how serious a matter this is.
For those entering school at the age of five and those changing schools at the age of 11, and with middle schools perhaps at the age of 13 and tertiary sixth-form colleges at the age of 16, the time you want to know what public transport facilities will be available is when you are making choices about the school to go to in September, and that time is normally after Easter. Therefore, it is essential that those who are making judgments about which school their children will attend in the following September should know by Easter what public transport facilities will be available for them. The proposed date of 4th April 1987 provides that protection. It enables parents to make judgments about schools in the full knowledge that the public transport system is the best appropriate—one hopes so, anyway—for the choice that they have made.
There is also the question of the municipal year and the fact that what is proposed comes in the middle of the municipal year, budgets having been made about six months in advance of that time. Surely it is advantageous, if it is possible, to have the deregulation day as close as possible to the municipal year so that budgeting can more rationally be carried out.
Again, it is not only the municipal year and the school term that matter. There is also the consideration of the joint passenger board which has to be set up. It has to have its budgets which will be rate capped for three years. Again, those work on a municipal year basis. It will be extremely diffcult for them to operate halfway through a financial year. It is much more rational and logical for the changeover to take place at the same time for all those reasons.
I said that I should refer at the end of my speech to Amendment No. 304. It is to Clause 161 and not to Schedule 5. It provides a safety net for the Secretary of State, enabling him to extend any of the periods concerned if he believes that rational and the best possible economic judgments cannot be made at any of those complex stages of the transitional process. I believe that any prudent Secretary of State would wish to have such a safety net incorporated in the Act. I hope that he will not find it necessary to use it. But although we are considering Amendment No. 304 together with the others, I hope that the Government will be able to respond separately to that suggestion.
We did not satisfactorily consider these matters at the Committee stage. I believe that on Report it is the duty of the House to think again, to think more deeply about these matters and to consider the best way in which the Government's own objectives can be achieved. I believe that the amendments that we are putting forward again now are the simplest and most constructive way to protect the Government from the unfortunate consequences of their own consideration. Lest I am accused of bringing forward complex amendments now, let me say that my amendments number only 19; the Government's amendments to Clause 161 and Schedule 5 number 22. In Committee in July I gave a warning that further Government amendments would be required for this part of the Bill. I am sorry that in this as in other parts of the Bill my predictions have been justified.
The Bill is virtually being made up as it goes along. The fact that we have over 300 amendments at Report stage in the spillover period at the end of the Session is clear evidence of that. The Government do not have their thoughts or procedures straight. I am not now questioning their political will, but what I am saying is that these amendments would make it a better Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment because, quite apart from its virtues or possibly its vices, I feel that it is useful to discuss this matter before we reach Schedule 5 and certainly at this stage of the Bill. It is important in this sphere to get matters as right as possible. It will not encourage on-the-road competition so well if there is too little time left for it to appear at the outset. At the same time I am well aware that there are those who believe that we should get on with the Bill and the whole process as fast as we can if we have to do it. I tend to agree, but I am also aware of the difficulties. There are problems particularly in the urban areas and in counties like Lancashire and Cheshire which have bigger urban conurbations, and there are problems interconnected with local government reorganisation.
364
I should prefer it if we could avoid back-dating the whole operation, as the amendment would do. However, I am aware that that may not be so readily possible. Let me stress what I should have preferred. I should have preferred a flexible approach, leaving D-Day—deregulation day—where it is, but nevertheless getting a little nearer to the solution being all things to all men. After deregulation day we were originally to have had an initial three-month period. I wonder what chance there is that that might be resuscitated, though I realise there are difficulties over that. That period could be used to satisfy two requirements—the request of the operators for a period of reflection and for local authorities, which in the meantime have made temporary arrangements, to complete the operation of putting subsidised services out to tender. A three-month period would take them to the following school term. That is one difficulty that that may help to overcome.
I stress the importance of education authorities not being forced to take action on their own because of deregulation day anxieties. If they did that it would be expensive and a first defeat in the achievement of operating economies.
In the metropolitan counties the new authority has to be set up and to determine its policy. It could be informally set up before and do some ghosting, but it will nevertheless have a lot to do. The transport executive has to form a new company. I believe that the situation is much the same for district councils that run their own buses. Then there is tendering. I wonder whether in some districts subsidised services will have to cover a greater area than is expected. With financial stringency that may mean re-planning the routes a second time in order to cut the coat according to the cloth. It will all take time and may be more protracted than is hoped.
It all adds up to a formidable task. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister can tell us. There is no doubt that we still have problems.
Lord Somers; My Lords, noble Lords have no doubt made a logical case for the amendment. I agree with what they have said, but the one aspect that I find difficult to accept is the date of 1987. We are all aware of the fact that the wheels of government grind very slowly indeed, but this is almost bringing them to a full stop. There is no doubt a great deal of reorganisation to be done, but surely we could have a slightly earlier date than 1987. Could it not be 1986, possibly later than April? If we wait until 1987 most of us will have forgotten what it is all about.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I rise at this opportune time and begin by answering the point of the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I think that he is referring to a few dates in the amendment, but the date of April 1987 relates to only certain stages and certain cases mentioned in Schedule 5. I would advise the noble Lord, and other noble Lords who wish to take up this point, to spend, like some of us, about half an hour or an hour reading through the implications of this matter. I hope that he will reach the same conclusion as I have—that simply plucking out the odd date is not what it is all about.

365
4.30 p.m.
As a party to this amendment, I believe that this is an opportune moment to pay tribute to the Government, who have tried to do something about the timing aspect. It is the timing of the Bill that we are discussing in amendments to Schedule 5. Unfortunately, the schedule does not go far enough. We are coming to this afresh. Normally, there is a week or 10 days between Committee stage and Report. In this case, there has been a gap of about three months. I have taken advantage of that time to go out and about. The industry is aware, I know, that the Bill is going through largely in its present form. I am impressed by the fact that those in the industry are entirely aware of that, and that they accept it. I am afraid, however, that it is still my belief that the timescale is completely unrealistic to the majority.
Sitting here as politicians or quasi-politicians—whatever we like to call ourselves—our first consideration is the public and those who travel on public transport. This was the one point which, at Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Peyton and myself, I believe, had in common. There are, however, some operators who dislike the whole idea of road service licensing and who wish to see road service licensing over and done with as soon as possible. When one goes into this matter further, one realises that the timescale is not possible. One wants to see the whole operation work smoothly. Although one may not like the Bill, or anything about it, one wants it to work.
As my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton has mentioned, at the end of the day the bus industry is all to do with minutes and seconds. One is well aware of that. It is necessary to ensure that everyone—the manager, the driver and the fitter—knows exactly where his place is. The Government hope that new operators will emerge. They hope that, once there is competition, people will emerge from the woodwork and invest their money. I hope that this will be the case. I, personally, have seen no sign that this will happen, but I hope that such people do materialise. They will require time and encouragement. That, again, is very much the spirit of this amendment. However, the Government timetable would not permit this to happen.
There is a great risk that things will not work out as either the Government or operators desire. This is true over Great Britain as a whole, but is even more true in the case of major urban areas, where most people live and where most bus passengers are to be found. In the conurbations, the Bill will come into force concurrently with other legislation such as the Act abolishing the metropolitan counties and introducing joint boards which could be rate-capped.
The passenger transport executives are concerned that they are required to continue to implement the policies of the county councils, to introduce the new joint boards to their new responsibilities, to identify their commercial services for registration, to assess the demand for subsidised services that are put out to tender, to establish and manage the tendering system, to develop alternative concessionary fare schemes for the joint board to establish by 1st April 1986, to prepare a scheme for the division of the passenger transport executive, and to prepare the budget for the
366
new joint board in a rate-capped situation with half the year regulated and half the year deregulated. I apologise to the Official Report writers: I have read out what is a terrible mouthful very quickly. I have done that on purpose. There are so many things to do in a short space of time.
Many of these items are interim in nature. Nearly every item is subject to either advice or to guidance from the Department of Transport. Many require the approval of the Secretary of State. Above all, passenger transport executives must continue to keep the existing services running. So the compounded effects of local government reorganisation, rate-capping and the Bill now before your Lordships—the Transport Bill—set the passenger transport executives and, I imagine, as my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton remarked, other counties which contain large urban areas—few of them do not have some urban areas—an impossible task to carry out within the 10 months allowed by the Bill. This amendment seeks to give operators and all authorities additional time, so essential if the Bill is to succeed—and this, I believe, is the wish of your Lordships.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we have been talking about the difficulties of getting the Bill off the ground. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with his great knowledge of how metropolitan authorities work and of how transport systems work, has indicated some of the detailed problems. We must, however, be realistic about public expectations. It has been extremely interesting during the Recess to see the enthusiasm that potential private operators and existing private operators are showing in planning how they will operate under the new system, and how they will take advantage of it.
It has also been interesting to see how, in the immediate area where I live, the public are becoming aware of the new possibilities. I can give the example of a country bus route that was discontinued because it became so expensive that no one could afford to travel. But that route, if it existed now, would be used by 14 new students attending the new college term. As there is no bus, their parents have to transport the students across country for three miles to catch a bus on another route. They are longing for the new bus system to come into operation. There are at least two bus operators, so far as I am aware, who are thinking of running that service. They do not want to see any postponement. They are extremely anxious to get on with the operation.
Knowledge of the Bill is patchy. However, in that area people are aware of it, and local bus operators are extremely keen. They are working out the steps that will have to be taken in preparation for the Bill getting off the ground. They are assessing possible routes. They are even asking themselves such details as the extent to which local groups are over-estimating the number of potential passengers. They are being very realistic. They are talking about the matter. They are working out what fuel duty rebate might be worth to them. This is the extent of the detail in which they have become involved. They are trying to come to terms with understanding the different status of running a subsidised service compared with the situation previously. All these things are going ahead

367
while we argue. There will be great disappointment should there be a postponement.
Like many of your Lordships, I, too, have been talking to councillors. Of course, councillors—and, still more so, their staff—are still unhappy about this whole matter. I am bound to say to your Lordships that my reading of this matter is that it is not really the practical, logistical problems or the problems of dates that are worrying councillors; but I believe that they are still feeling their way to discovering how they will be able to operate as councillors and help their constituents through this system as opposed to the old system because the ability to get, for example, cross-subsidy to work for one's constituents, and so on—which all of us who have been councillors have done and it was our job to do—is changing and they will have to do this in a different way. They are very much afraid that the new system—unless they can come to terms with it in time—will cost votes. It is right and proper that they should be anxious about this. They will have to come to terms with it. But I am quite sure that they will do it in time for the Bill as it is set out at the moment.
So far as concerns the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about choosing a school convenient to bus services—and I quite agree with him that people do that—the free transport people will have to be transported anyway. Many authorities, particularly rural ones—I presume county councils, and certainly the Scottish regions who have more rural areas in them—already use the existing public service for school transport. They will not have so many changes to make. Others do it entirely by contract at the moment. They will have to make changes. Holidays vary in different parts of the country; but there is no reason whatever, in my view, why correspondence should not go out to schools well in advance saying, "On Friday the system will be such and such, and on Monday it will be something else". In choosing schools nobody can be sure that the same bus route will continue throughout their child's primary school or secondary school life. In busy areas those buses will continue. There may well be more bus services. I do not believe that that is a point, although it is a very good argument for postponing the implementation of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made the other point about local government finance. There are others of your Lordships who know very much more about that than I do. However, it seems to me that making a stab at the amount of resources you are going to allocate to subsidised services will not be all that much easier for the following year than it would for the year before because so much depends on how the market works out, and that figure will not settle down for quite a long time. I am not sure therefore that that is such an important point as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh suggested. Some other noble Lords may feel differently about that.
It seems to me therefore that people will be very impatient for the implementation of this Bill and it is amazing how quickly they are becoming keen on it. At the beginning I was none too sure whether I thought that the Bill was likely to have the effect that the Government hoped. However, as one sees it all being worked out on the ground, and the enthusiasm of the
368
people on the ground, especially in areas like the Highlands—my own area, the borders of Scotland, Argyle—people in all these areas are getting very interested. I think it would be a great mistake to postpone the date just for the sake of the convenience of some officials.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that she has made a number of points which have to be replied to later in the debate. There is one matter on which I should like to be of one mind with her. That is the example which she gave, to which I listened with great interest, of the two operators who were willing to supply a service for a number of students and did not want the final date put back because that would put back the date on which they could supply that service. Would the noble Baroness not agree with me that if the operators have road service licences, or are willing to apply for them, they could go ahead and provide that service without waiting for the provisions of this Bill to come into force?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is indeed a kindly man. He invited your Lordships to accompany him back to a summer's evening in July. Tempting as it would be to be three months or so younger than one is, I am bound to say that to go back to the Committee stage of this Bill is to me an unwelcome prospect, and even the company of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not tempt me to change my mind.
I feel also that those on the Front Bench are in a better position than I am to accept the noble Lord's nobility of temperament in saying as he did, very generously, that his only aim was to help the Government out of the hole which it was mistakenly and stubbornly and obtusely digging for itself. My noble friend Lord Belstead needs no advice or warning from me; but I am bound to say that if I were in a slightly slippery, difficult hole—and I am far from admitting that the Government are—I should be a little worried if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, appeared on the edge of the hole and said that his only intention was to help me out, particularly within the context of this Bill. I think that for the moment at any rate I would retreat to the depth of the hole rather than risk getting a boot in the face from the noble Lord.
I wonder whether the noble Lord could genuinely assist me in explaining what he has not so far explained—and it may simply be that I have failed to catch on or understand. I would appreciate it greatly if the noble Lord can tell me what he thinks will be achieved by these amendments. I refer particularly to those to Schedule 5. As I see it, the important ones to which I am referring are those which put back the final date for registration by some six months.
The question I want to ask the noble Lord is: how would that time be used? If you put off the final date of registration nobody will know exactly what you are preparing for. As I understand it, these amendments are designed to cope with the inadequacy of the time which the Government have allowed in order to complete some very complicated arrangements. It would therefore seem to me that all that these

369
amendments would achieve—and I hope that I am not completely in error here—would be to render six months of time completely sterile during which nothing would happen. The noble Lord shakes his head but no doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will have some comments to make on this. If I am wrong I should be grateful to my noble friend if he would interrupt me now and put me right because I do not wish to go forward any further with some serious misunderstanding of what is intended.
I sometimes have the impression when I listen to discussions within the curtilage of the Palace of Westminster that time does not affect us as it affects other men. I do not believe that it is right simply to go on with amendments which seek to delay for, so far as I can understand it, no very good reason and no very clear understanding about how the time allegedly to be saved will in fact be usefully spent. I am always very reluctant to pass any comments on the motives of noble Lords particularly when they put their names to amendments on the Marshalled List. However, it is with great difficulty that I resist the conclusion that this amendment is yet one more of a long series of amendments designed to wreck this Bill.
The opposition to this Bill has been, as I understand it, conducted by those who are totally hostile, in this context, to innovation; who are dedicated to the rebuttal of all criticism; and who are devoted to the maintenance of the present system, our system, regardless as to whether it is serving the customers well or ill. My noble friend Lord Teviot referred to one point which he had in common with me. I was unable to hear what that point was so I am unable either to deny or to confirm it.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, we are on Report but, with the leave of the House, may I say that either on Second Reading or at Committee my noble friend said that I had said that the public was of paramount importance. He attributed that remark to me, and we had it in common.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am unusually indebted to my noble friend, who on this occasion has refreshed my memory most usefully. I must say to my noble friend Lord Teviot that during the long, protracted passage of this Bill he seems to me to have danced continually to the "Shepherd's piping", and I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place to hear me say that. My noble friend Lord Teviot seems to me to have achieved a good deal more footage in Hansard than he has made positive impact upon a Bill which is intended as a useful contribution to the industry.
I am sorry to say these things, but I feel that throughout our discussions on this Bill there have been those noble Lords who have resolutely refused to accept that there may be any blemishes in this industry, any slight points of weakness, to which the attention of this House could properly be focused, and as yet I have heard no proposals from them as to how the industry might be improved; merely the suggestion that what the Government are doing is wrong and a complete ignoring of the cost of supporting the industry as it is now.
May I return briefly to this amendment and ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether he is
370
satisfied—and time is always a valuable commodity in this world—in the light of recent events, in the light of what is now happening in the industry, that the time allowed under the Bill will give a reasonable chance to get the Government's proposals for the future of this industry on a proper footing and in the way that they themselves would wish? I have little doubt that this amendment, like others before it, is aimed at the wrecking of the Bill. The postponement in effect for six months of any action can hardly be regarded as a positive contribution even by those who put it forward.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because I did not hear the whole of his speech. I was running around the Chamber, trying, quite unsuccessfully, to find what amendments he has grouped with this. As I was unsuccessful I can only deal with Amendment No. 1, and I have nothing to say as to its general merits and the sentiments which it expresses. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, put it, it expresses nobility of sentiment. However, I venture to question the desirability of trying to legislate in this way.
I cannot see that there is anything enforceable in this amendment, or any way of enforcing what it seeks to do. The nearest one would get to it is the useful new system of judicial review, but that seems to be quite inappropriate in this case. Therefore, however desirable it is to do what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to do—which I think can be summarised by saying that it seeks to bring the new system in in an orderly, efficient, and effective way—it cannot really be written into an Act of Parliament in this way.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I spent some time at Second Reading of this Bill expressing the view that it went unnecessarily far beyond our manifesto commitment, it had not been properly thought out, the consultations on it were not as they should have been, and it had not been properly researched and tested. But the House clearly took a different view and embarked on the Bill in Committee with a view to improving it, and that is what we ought to be doing now. Therefore, in my view it is far too late to introduce an amendment of the kind we are discussing at the moment.
On the other hand, it would be remiss of me not to make your Lordships aware of the difficulties in responding to what is in the Bill for the local authorities, who have to do an enormous number of rather complicated things in a short time. As soon as we had finished the Committee stage I explained to Ministers concerned exactly what was involved, particularly in relation to the budgeting process, in the authorities which run bus operations, and in a number of other respects.
The difficulties are particularly acute in the case of the district councils which run bus companies, because the budgeting process leading to a rate being struck next April has now been going on for two or three months and they are having to guess such things as how much to transfer into the new companies, and what to do about their pensions. They are having to guess which routes will have to be subsidised, and by

371
how much. Those not already running taxis are having to engage and train staff to engage in the licensing process, and so on and so forth.
What my noble friend Lady Carnegy described as enthusiasm is, in a much larger number of cases, diligence in tackling these considerable problems at such high speed. It will get done, but it will not get done well, and a considerable number of errors will occur with which the present system of local government finance is ill equipped to deal. That is all I have to say. We have to get on with it now as best we can, and the authorities with which I am in touch are doing their best, but it will not be done well. It cannot possibly be done well in the timescale provided.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I shall be short. During the Recess I had the opportunity of talking to a number of people, mostly in Scotland and in the rural areas, about the Bill. I want to say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that I am anxious that this Bill should succeed. I am not against the Bill. I think that it is a good Bill, and I think most people do.
However, I agree with those people who have said that the time for organising this is too short, and if you get a muddle instead of a planned organisation then it is going to be disastrous for the Bill.
I have a letter here from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in which they say:
"if registration for a significant number of services is achieved as a result of road service licences granted between 1st March 1986 and 16th August 1986 [then] this restricts the effective period for completion of tendering to 17th August 1986 to 27th September 1986 only six weeks in which to advertise, receive, scrutinise and award tenders."
It cannot be done in that time. I want it to succeed. I want it to be a success, but if it is made as short as that it will be a muddle. I hope that the Government will realise what effect this will have if they do not make some alteration.
5 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have had a serious debate on an undoubtedly difficult issue. The nub of the matter brought up by this group of amendments is that there has to be a trade-off between, on the one hand, giving local authorities and passenger transport executives enough time for tendering and setting up their companies and, on the other hand, minimising the delays and uncertainties for operators, their staff and passengers. Every day that we put off deregulation we stretch out the waiting time for the operator. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was justified in putting his finger on an unconscionable period of time which the amendments would represent in putting off the coming into effect of the Bill. These amendments represent a year and a half from now before the Bill would fully come into effect, April 1987. The noble Lord, from his independent position on the Cross-Benches was perfectly fair in putting his finger on that.
I add that I think the worst thing we can do is to leave any further uncertainty in the Bill. At the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, came back to one of his many amendments, Amendment No.
372
304. To set out a timetable stretching for a year and a half from now, but to provide—as Amendment No. 304 does—the possibility for yet further delay, provides no sensible basis for planning.
Since the Committee stage local authorities and operators have had two and a half months to think further about the work ahead, to plan and to make strategic decisions, and in some cases even to go out to consultation on their proposals and to recruit staff. They have also had the benefit of four further consultation documents from the department affecting detailed implementation requirements. This has put authorities in a much better position to judge whether the timetable in the Bill is achievable. My noble friend Lady Carnegy was right to say that both operators and authorities are viewing with considerable enthusiasm the increased competition and extra opportunities that there will be under this legislation. In that same period authorities and operators have been able to digest the amendments to the transitional period which were added by your Lordships at Committee stage and to which my noble friend Lord Teviot referred.
Your Lordships will remember that the main purpose of those amendments that we took through the House in July was to bring forward to 28th February next year the registration of commercial services to give local authorities a good six months for the tendering process. It is fair to say that there has been a general welcome for those amendments to which your Lordships agreed.
It is in the context of those transitional steps that we must judge the effect of these amendments which would put back deregulation. The amendments we are debating do not give the county councils any longer period for their work on tendering. No, my Lords, the amendments are seeking to put back all the transitional steps set out in Schedule 5. Indeed, the time which will be allowed for tendering under these amendments is to be squeezed by one month to give operators even longer to register their services, but only five months for the tendering process. What on earth is the point of that? As my noble friend Lord Peyton said, how on earth will that time be used? Do operators really need until October next year, a year from now, to register their commercial services? The intelligence the department is receiving suggests that many operators are well advanced with their plans already. I understand that some are seeking to make use of the relaxed road service licence criteria to start new and varied services as early as possible. If we were simply to defer registration of commercial services until October and deregulation until April 1987 we should no doubt see many applications within the licensing system, but I do not think that is what noble Lords intended in moving this amendment.
What is the point of these amendments? They do nothing to help the tendering authorities; indeed, they are making the period for tendering shorter. Are they perhaps intended to give time to set up the new public transport companies? I should hardly have thought that that was so. If the companies are set up before registration and before tendering their managements will be in ignorance of both the commercial and the subsidised networks. If I may say so that seems to be the worst of all possible worlds.

373
But I come to an important point which my noble friend Lord Sandford raised and to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. That is that district councils have to set their budgets early next year for 1986–87 and they will not know how much subsidy will be required or how much business their transport companies will win. I do not wish to underestimate those problems, but the budget argument has to be put in context to the extent that district companies will win less business than they anticipated. That will be because others have offered services at lower costs and in turn that will mean a lower subsidy bill for the local authority. Similarly, if competition brings lower fares that will bring a lower concessionary fare bill for the local authority. Thus there will be some pleasant surprises as well as some problems to overcome. To put the budget argument further in context, I understand that the district transport undertakings typically account for less than 5 per cent. of a district's total budget. Even in the high spending authorities we are talking about less than 20 per cent. of total spending.
In 1986–87 the transport changes will only affect half a year's budget, so typically we are looking at any unexpected results affecting perhaps 2½ per cent. of a local authority's total budget. So even a misjudgment, taking expenditure as much as 25 per cent. above budget, would typically affect less than 1 per cent. of a district's total expenditure. I do not believe that this is an argument which we could allow to assume undue significance in considering the best timetable for transition.
I strongly agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy in that we do a disservice to operators if we hold back deregulation for a long period. I have listened carefully to noble Lords and I concede that the work which authorities have to put through between now and September is daunting and will require every effort. I believe the Schedule 5 timetable is achievable. I concede it is tight, but with a new regime the scope for mistakes is always greater. If mistakes occur the timetable could then be stretched to its very limit. I have listened carefully not only to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but also to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who at the end of his speech I think was implicitly saying this.
It is because I think we need to have some more elbow room on the timetable that I say now that the Government are prepared to consider a small extension of the tendering period by putting back deregulation day by just one month—choosing a date in late October or early November as best calculated to coincide with school half-term holidays in England and Wales. The point about education provision in Scotland has been covered well by my noble friend Lady Carnegy in her speech.
Whatever suspicion some of us on this side may have about the intentions behind this amendment—I only say that because the effect of them is that there is little to be done for about a year and for deregulation to take place in a year and a half s time—the fact is that the amendments which are before your Lordships today reduce the period for the tendering process from six months to five. We say there is a case for an extension to seven months for the concession which I
374
have just given and, as I have said, we are prepared to give just that. I hope your Lordships will see which of these courses offers real help to counties and to districts and will not agree with this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must start by expressing my appreciation to the noble Lord. Lord Belstead for the concession that he made in the last few minutes of his speech. Even one-sixth of what has been asked for must be welcomed and I believe it is in the Government's interests to make that change, which will presumably be in the form of amendments to Schedule 5 at Report stage.
Lord Belstead: Third Reading.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Third Reading rather than Report stage; I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, in making that concession, I think he has shown a misunderstanding of both the purpose and the effect of these amendments, which was shared by rather too many noble Lords but ought not to have been shared by the Government. It is certainly true that our amendments do not make a major change in the period of the actual tendering period. What they are designed to achieve is that the raw material which is being worked on by the operators, by the joint boards, by the passenger transport authorities and by the traffic commissioners, is a good deal better considered, better thought out, than it would be if one used the Government's timetable. That is the purpose of the amendments, to extend the first period, the period in which tenders can be entered, rather than to try to extend the later period of the tenders.
I think I am bound to say again that the Government have paid inadequate attention to the problems which will face the authorities in this period up until 28th February 1986. This is the thrust of these amendments. If one takes the PTE areas, the authorities concerned during that period have to do this—and they cannot start yet because many of the orders are still out for consultation and will not be resolved until closer to the end of the year. They have to evaluate what commercial services are likely to be run. They have to establish the initial companies; they have to identify and evaluate the assets and liabilities of the initial companies and they have to fill out the companies' structure for them and determine their costs. They have to obtain approval of the Secretary of State for all these matters. They have to register their commercial services. Then finally they have to receive the tenders and assess and return them to the PTEs before one gets into the run-up to deregulation day.
In the shire counties it is not much less complicated. The Bill as amended now requires the authorities to complete a policy review. They have to sort out their policy on concessionary fares. This is common to all the authorities. They have to have the system set up. They have to give time to set out their own regulations and allow for responses to them. They have to set up the companies concerned. It is a huge task to be carried out between November, at the earliest, and the end of February 1986, and it is that period that we say is inadequate, not so much the further tendering period.

375
I may say that, so far as the tendering period is concerned, it may be that we have telescoped it a little in these amendments but we have avoided one loophole which the Government have left in the Bill, which is the 14th August date. It is, after all, possible for any smart operator to give up his road service licence just before 28th February and to apply for one again on 1st March or afterwards. That gives him the opportunity or the power to extend his final tender until 14th August rather than 30th June. That leaves only six weeks for the proper consideration of the tender, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on his own arguments, would agree is inadequate.
These amendments certainly do not involve a period of inaction after the passage of this Bill and before work starts on implementation. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has failed to appreciate that work will start, must start, as soon as the Bill has been passed. As soon as the authorities have the regulations that they need to work with, it is in their own interests to do so. The 4th April 1987—
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord? If he is saying that work must start only when this and that has happened, I think he is in danger of misleading the House. Work started a long time ago. I have in my hand here about 100 pages of notes which the Association of District Councils issued to the districts several months ago without waiting for the Department of Transport. If we were doing that, we would never get this thing off the ground.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that. I think it strengthens the case I am making. The point I am making is that 4th July 1987 is deregulation day; it is the end of the procedure, not the beginning of the procedure.
While I am responding to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I must say that I was slightly surprised at his saying that it was too late for these amendments to be put now. I know that he was generally supportive of the case that was being put, but he did, after all, say in Committee that it was not possible to have an informed debate at 11 o'clock at night on the last day, even if we sat until breakfast time, and he volunteered, if the Government refused to recommit Schedule 5, to move recommittal himself. He seems to have changed his mind on that. However, I am grateful to him for the other things he has said.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that Amendment No. 1 by itself was unenforceable. I think that if he had been in his seat to hear me read out the other amendments, as I did, which were being proposed at the same time, he would agree that it is complete, that it provides precise dates, just as the Government do at the moment, and that he can give the support he has given to it without worry about the amendment being legally unenforceable.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, may I say that my apology was very much due?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, put forward, if I may say so,
376
a rather curious argument and she did not feel able to respond to my question to her. There is nothing to stop the operators about whom she is talking going in in advance of the Bill. They can do it without the Bill and indeed they can do so, to provide these services, with the agreement of the relevant authorities. I cannot see, from what she described, any reason why such agreement should be withheld. They can do so without fear of a predator following in and taking over their route. If they are so keen to provide this route, I am sure the Government would agree that there is nothing to stop them. It really would be nonsense to suggest that the Bill is required in order to provide that kind of additional service.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot. I think that her investigations during the last two-and-a-half months clearly have been worthwhile. They clearly have shown, that, whatever the Government's intelligence may be, there is concern. There is concern, which extends not only to these Benches, that the Government may not be doing the right thing for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in his usual courteous and witty way, sought to doubt my motives in putting forward these amendments. I have no second thoughts about this. I am opposed to making these two experiments at the same time. We are opposed to the combination of privatisation and liberalisation which is the essence of this Bill. We sought amendments at Committee stage to improve the timetable but also to continue the role of local authorities in transport services and to assure some kind of democratic control through local authorities with them. Those amendments were politically unacceptable to the Government. We do not apologise in any way for putting forward a different political view from that of the Government in the consideration of legislation in this Chamber. In fact, we consider it to be our political duty to do that.
We come now to the Report stage. We ought not to have been discussing these matters in this way for the first time at Report stage; they ought to have been discussed in Committee. But I believe that it can fairly be said that the amendments proposed here involve no damage to the principle of the Bill; they involve no major difference to the internal timetable of implementation, even without the concession which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead is proposing to make at Third Reading. They ensure, I believe, that those who are burdened with the daunting task, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, described it, of implementing the changes in this Bill will be doing so with the best possible raw material, the best possible consideration and the best possible tenders for services that can be made available to them. Without that initial delay, without time to carry out the very complex tasks which will fall on all concerned in the early part of next year, we believe that the chance of success of this Bill is gravely damaged. For those reasons, despite the concessions offered by the Government at this stage, we believe that it is necessary to take the opinion of the House on this matter.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 139.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bacon, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bernstein, L.

McNair, L.

Beswick, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Blyton, L.

Mellish, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Molloy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Brockway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Chitnis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Collison, L.

Plant, L.

Darwen, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Diamond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Roberthall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkender, B.

Scanlon, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Fitt, L.

Shackleton, L.

Foot, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L.

Shinwell, L.

Galpem, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Gloucester, Bp.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Heycock, L.

Teviot, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

Ingleby, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kaldor, L.

White, B.

Leatherland, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

I.istowel, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Lockwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Caithness, E.

Aldington, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Bauer, L.

Chelwood, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Chesham, L.

Beloff, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belstead, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Bessborough, E.

Cowley, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cox, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Craigavon, V.

Brentford, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Daventry, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Davidson, V.

Butterworth, L.

Denning, L.

378

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mersey, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Middleton, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Munster, E.

Foley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Forbes, L.

Newall, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Gainford, L.

Orkney, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Pender, L.

Glanusk, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Greenway, L.

Gridley, L.

Porritt, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Portland, D.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reay, L.

Renton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Romney, E.

Hanson, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy. Ly.

Harvington, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hayter, L.

Sharpies, B.

Henley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Somers, L.

Hood, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Hylton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Suffield, L.

Ingrow, L.

Swansea, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Terrington, L.

Kimball, L.

Teynham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kintore, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Trumpington, B.

Layton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Liverpool, E.

Vickers, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Vivian, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Waldegrave, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Westbury, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Whitelaw, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Wise, L.

McFadzean, L.

Wolfson, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wynford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Yarborough, E.

Margadale, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Marley, L.

Ypres, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
() This section shall only apply to a passenger transport area, in which the Executive own and operate a railway in co-ordination with local services, in respect of which system of public passenger transport services, single through journey ticketing is available, if the Secretary of State makes an order, and in this subsection "single through joumey ticketing" means the facility to use only one ticket in completing a journey from the intitial boarding point to the final destination, involving different modes of public passenger transport service or more than one boarding of the same mode of public passenger transport service.
() The Secretary of State shall not make an order unless, after evaluating the benefits and costs including past expenditure, of such a system of public passenger transport services, he is satisfied that that system will not be adversely affected by the effects of such an order.
() Any order made under this section may contain such supplementary incidental consequential and transitional provision as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. It is drafted for one particular purpose, and that is the temporary initial exclusion of the Tyne and Wear PTA, the Metro, from the legislation. It is drafted in that way because it is solely related to that operation and it seeks to avoid a genuine problem of hybridity.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was the Minister of the day who gave sanction and approval to a new form and concept of public transport around Tyne and Wear. It was a concept taking into account the economic and social problems of Newcastle, Tyne and Wear and the surrounding county areas. It was felt that some effort should be made to create a transport service that would breathe new life into that area. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, as I mentioned, as Minister of Transport of the day, gave approval to it. I stress that because all successive governments since then have given support to the concept of the Metro and the integration of transport services within that area.
The Bill has exclusions. The Secretary of State has decided temporarily to exclude from the provisions of the Bill transport services within London, and I would suggest that there is a case for a pause and for consideration of the service that is now being provided. The body that has been created—the Metro was completed only in March last year, I believe—should be allowed to run for a period until judgments can be made as to whether it is sensible and whether it gives cash benefits and value for money to those who live within the region.
It is too early to say whether it is a success, but certainly all the information that is now coming forward gives one a feeling that all the expectations of the planners, those who conceived it and those who gave their approval to some £283 million of capital expenditure, were right and that one is getting value for money.
The Tyne and Wear scheme is very much based upon the Metro. The Metro is a form of underground and above-ground rail service, and it makes a great deal of use of redundant British Rail track. It has been created and has evolved. It is today carrying a very large number of the community not only from within the Newcastle area but from outside it. I believe that without any question it is creating a new sense of community and a potential for industrial development within the area.
However, the Metro was designed solely on the basis that it was part of an integrated transport system. I do not wish to go into the politics of whether one should or should not have an integrated transport system, but successive Governments, whether Conservative or Labour, have been committed to this form of integration and, as I have said, they have committed some £283 million to it.
I think it is true that nobody would ever have sanctioned, conceived or made any proposals for the creation of the Metro if it had not been part of an integrated transport system. If you had not got an integrated transport system behind you, you would never have conceived or planned the Metro, because without an integrated system any investment in the
380
Metro scheme would have been a sheer waste of money. I think that that is fully accepted by the Government and by all those who have knowledge of the Metro and the integrated transport system.
The Metro has been established. It has great potential not only in terms of those who live within the area but, in a funny way, also for export sales. A number of overseas countries have been particularly interested in the whole concept of the Tyne and Wear operation, but the crucial factor for success has been the integration of bus, rail and the Metro itself.
The Government are concerned about the consequences of the Bill as regards the Tyne and Wear Metro, so much so that when we debated this very shortly in Committee the Minister said that there were very urgent considerations going on between the Government and the Tyne and Wear PTA as to financial assistance for the Metro in the interim period. I am sure that the House at Report stage will wish to know how far those discussions have gone, how far the Government are able to assist the authority and what is the response of the authority to the Government's proposals. But I suspect that the Government's proposals will be purely an amelioration of a delay in terms of what I believe will be the consequences of this Bill to the Metro and to the basic concept of the integrated system.
I know of two old companies in that area—United and Northern. They are in this difficulty. They are today working very happily in providing services into the interchange stations which are part of the Metro system. They are providing services by which people can move to the interchange and into the Metro, needing only one ticket to see them through. But if we perceive the Bill as it is now drafted and without the exclusion of the Tyne and Wear part there is no doubt at all that the bus companies will not see themselves as part of the integrated system.
In fact, there are no commercial reasons why they should see themselves as part of the integrated system. All the commercial arguments are that the bus companies should see themselves not as partners within the integrated scheme, which is what was perceived when the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, initially approved it, but solely as competitors to the Metro. I have to say to your Lordships that as I see the situation, after many discussions with people on both the bus and the Metro systems, if the Bill is implemented as I suspect it will be—unless your Lordships agree to this amendment—buses will be competing with the Metro, and without any question the Metro will die. I leave it to your Lordships to imagine all the financial consequences that will follow.
I know that I am in difficulty with some of my noble friends, but I have not been absolutely opposed to the Government's concept in terms of competition. But the Government have spoken many times about the need for innovation, and Tyne and Wear is probably the greatest example of innovation in public transport for the past 30 or 40 years and is gravely at risk. I believe that there is a very serious case for the Government, without in any way jeopardising the basic philosophy that lies behind this Bill, to say, as in the case of London, that there should be an exception in the case of Tyne and Wear.
5.45 p.m.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that I am in some difficulty with some of my friends in arguing the case for making an exception of Tyne and Wear, as opposed to standing solidly behind other PTAs. But I genuinely believe that the situation in Tyne and Wear justifies having a period at least to allow the experiment, which I think was commenced only in March of last year, to go through. That would show as the early figures indicate that in terms of value for money, in terms of passenger riding and in terms of the figures which indicate the success of a transport organisation, the Tyne and Wear scheme should be allowed to proceed and should be excluded from the Bill as it is now drafted. It should be open to the Secretary of State, when he so wishes, to make an order to include it. But he would then have full knowledge of the benefits and of the balance of advantage either of setting buses free to run against the Metro, or of allowing the integrated system which successive governments have supported.
I move this amendment in no politically ideological way. I move it solely on the basis that we have invested a very sizeable sum of public money—some £283 million. It is a scheme which successive political parties and Ministers have supported, but which has not yet been able to prove itself one way or another. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be pragmatical—and I have always thought that one of the virtues of the Conservative Party was its being able to take pragmatic decisions—to allow this to continue until such time as a judgment can be made not only in terms of the taxpayer, who has put the money in, but in terms of the people of that area who attach increasing importance to the ability to be able to move—perhaps less cost-effectively—with one ticket from one end of the system to the other.
These words may be very inadequate, but I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment, let the Tyne and Wear operation continue and allow the Secretary of State, at such time as he may decide, to make an order according to the judgment on its success, its value for money and its value of service to the general community. The truth is that unless this operation is allowed to run we shall never know. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made a very powerful case for this amendment. It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord but I will explain briefly to your Lordships why I do so on this occasion. I have no interest to declare in that part of the world of a financial nature but I have seen the system in operation and can vouch for its undoubted success, particularly in how it copes with the disabled. In an area such as Tyne and Wear this is an especially important aspect. Six to seven thousand persons with varying disabilities travel each day on this network.
Like most of your Lordships I use public transport frequently, particularly the London Underground, and one knows the enormous handicaps which are faced in London by disabled people. This is especially so in the area around Waterloo Station, where there are large gaps. It is quite impossible for a partially disabled person, let alone somebody in a wheelchair, to mount
382
or dismount a train easily. But the Tyne and Wear integrated system has an extremely efficient way of coping with disabled persons—right from purchasing a ticket at the ticket barrier to mounting the train or the bus. It is surely essential in an area of the density of population of Tyne and Wear—the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, rightly mentioned its industrial significance—that this should be allowed to continue.
There is also the aspect of road safety. The building of the Metro system was supported by all parties of the local authority, and I have met representatives of all parties of the Tyne and Wear council. It has meant fewer cars on the roads and much less congestion on the motorways, on the A1(M), the A66 and other roads in the area. There is also the environmental point because we get less emission of fumes—Parliament as a whole is now very much wedded to the protection of the environment. So I believe that this is a very strong case. Had this been in its planning stage, had the system not been devised, then I believe the Goverment would have had a case but, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has rightly said, £283 million has been expended on this project with support from all political parties. Not only people in Tyne and Wear but people outside this country, delegates from Eastern Europe, delegates from Japan and all parts of the world have been to see for themselves what is a unique system.
I do believe that it is very necessary in terms of cost effectiveness to keep this system going. If it is not to be kept going, I would submit to the House that the cost to the Exchequer will be very high. Many of your Lordships will know that these trains are operated by one person, so the system is run in a very economical way. I beg my noble friend the Minister, who gives great thought to any amendments put forward to him, to pay very great heed to the mover of this amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to say a very brief word on this interesting subject and commence by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for kindly sending me an excellent brief which supports his case and certainly supports the splendid record which the Tyne and Wear integrated scheme has achieved. I have read it with great interest and hope that it will continue. I would make the point to my noble friend Lord Auckland that the admirable arrangements which the trains have, particularly for dealing with disabled people, will continue in any event. With regard to what the Government are proposing, which is that the bus system should be made free so that private operators can operate in the city, it seems to me perfectly possible to get the benefits of the existing system and the benefits of the Government's proposals by the operators contracting with the individual private bus operators in order to integrate as seems desirable the bus operations with rail. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, nods his wise head—
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I was shaking it.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord was shaking it. Perhaps he will come to nodding it later. I hope so.

383
Why should this not be possible? It is obviously pragmatically possible. My noble friend Lord Auckland asks the Government to be pragmatic. That is all that I am asking them to do. I believe that it is possible to combine the two schemes. I believe that the Government's broad approach is right. Something radical is needed to deal with bus services throughout the country. It would be a mistake to except this city when there is every prospect of this admirable system continuing by the rail service contracting with the bus service to integrate such bus services as it thinks desirable with the rail service. My noble friend Lord Belstead did of course expose these arguments in Committee. But I think they are valid arguments and they certainly persuaded me.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, with his renowned wide vision will see that it is possible to combine the benefits of both. The noble Lord does indeed observe that there are benefits to be gained from the Government's proposals for bus services in various parts of the country and I hope he will see that this might be one of them too.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like very briefly to support strongly what my noble friend Lord Nugent has just said. It is not only true that my noble friend Lord Belstead in speaking to Amendment No. 5 in Committee made it quite clear that all the benefits of the present system will be retained: it is also the case that the Government's new proposals, will give an opportunity for improving it. After all deregulated buses in proper competition will surely provide what is necessary more accurately and better than the cost benefit analysis which is proposed in the amendment.
Cost benefit analysis always depends on clever people making assumptions. We have heard a lot of clever people in debates on this Bill who have made all sorts of assumptions, most of which are completely contradicted by other clever people with different assumptions. On the whole, the market-place is probably the best way of resolving this. The advantages about which my noble friend Lord Auckland spoke will all be there to be retained and we will get the great advantage for the customer. One must always remember that it is not really a question of whether this, that or the other bureaucracy benefits but of whether the customer benefits. That is what the Bill is all about. The customer is going to benefit the better if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, takes the advice which my noble friend gave him in Committee and withdraws this amendment in due course.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before we part with this amendment I should like to make a few observations. I do so as one who had the privilege to be Minister of Transport at the time when approval for the Tyne and Wear scheme was first given. There are few things on which I look back with greater pleasure than having had some part in launching that scheme, for it replaced a really horrible sore in that part of the world. Environmentally it was vile and the fact that it so long survived was a lingering disgrace for all of us. Happily, the whole broken-down, filthy, dirty railway line was replaced by a very attractive modern service, and one in which the users and the operators visibly take great pride today.
384
6 p.m.
I have risen to my feet only to say to my noble friend Lord Auckland, who praised the scheme, that I would certainly not be prepared to go along with any proposal which put so imaginative a venture at risk. However, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and others who have opposed this Bill (although not he) root and branch, are unable to place any limits on the harm which they see flowing from it. They allow their imagination to take the place of judgment. I personally see no reason to fear for the future of the Tyne and Wear service and I hope that this amendment will fail.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this amendment applies not only to Tyne and Wear but also to Glasgow, which owns its own Underground and to which most of what has been said also relates—although the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has yet to speak on this matter. He knows the Glasgow Underground better than I do, although I know it fairly well.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, before the noble Baroness launches forth on the situation in Glasgow, I may say that this amendment has been drafted solely for one purpose; to exclude Glasgow Strathclyde from the consequences of the amendment. Whether or not we have succeeded in that I do not know. Certainly such was the purpose of our drafting.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, am I to understand from the noble Lord that the amendment does not apply to Strathclyde in his view?
Lord Shepherd: It is not meant to do so, my Lords.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my understanding is that it does and my noble friend on he Front Bench confirms that view. If I may continue, it seems to me that transport in Glasgow is of absolutely crucial importance. It is probably more important to people there than anywhere else in Scotland that there should be cost-effective and plentiful transport. At times, the streets of Glasgow are enormously congested. It is extremely difficult to get across the centre of the city during the rush hour even by bus, as we know is the case in other cities. In Glasgow, the best way to travel during the rush hour is by Underground. I do not have the figures, but a great many people use that form of transport.
It seems obvious to me that a deregulated bus system will mean that operators will do the maximum to arrange matters so that people can travel by bus to a convenient point on the Underground and the reverse, so that passengers can pick up a bus after using the Underground. It would be in the interests of operators to do this.
We know that Strathclyde Regional Council has worked very hard to produce a good scheme. Although the amendment does not refer to this, other regional councils in Scotland have through-ticket arrangements with British Rail. This is a different issue but the thinking is the same. It is right that people should be able to make use of such a facility. In a congested city, with a deregulated bus system the

385
likelihood is that the Strathclyde Underground will carry more passengers and not fewer. More people will be able to travel about and they will be able to do so more cheaply. In Strathclyde it is in some ways even more important, since Strathclyde has been somewhat more moderate with its system of subsidy than has Tyne and Wear.
I too have received an extremely convincing argument from Tyne and Wear about its system. We know all the arguments. It is more a question of whether the planners, the council, the operators and the people who actually ride on the buses will arrive at the best solution. I do not believe that the Glasgow Underground will die. I believe that it will go from strength to strength and that there will be standing room only, as is often the case at the moment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I cannot help but feel that noble Lords who believe that, once services are deregulated, operators will work harmoniously to provide a co-ordinated service are being a little optimistic. Once bus services are deregulated, the operators will take the word "competition" seriously and the one thing they will be trying to do is drive their competitors off the road. They do not really care about co-ordinating services with anybody.
I confess that I have not been to Tyne and Wear but I studied the transport problems which exist there very carefully before speaking on the subject in your Lordships' House. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and with his amendment. It is essential that a system such as that in Tyne and Wear should be preserved. A co-ordinated service means so much to passengers. After all, transport is not a party matter. It does not matter whether the passenger is a Conservative or a member of the Labour Party—or even a Cross-Bencher. The point is that the passenger wants to get from one place to the other and he has a perfect right to do so. If we can make that easier for him, which is what a co-ordinated service does without doubt, then we should do all that is possible to preserve such a service.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it seems to me that the principal assumption made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is that this admirable metro system would somehow fall victim to bus competition. This seems to me to be an extraordinary improbable assumption when all over the world the congestion created by motor traffic in cities is leading to a revival of Underground and other rapid transport systems. This is simply because, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out in relation to Glasgow, it is quicker for a passenger—and as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, it is the passengers we are concerned with here—to travel through the centre of a major conurbation by rail (Underground or overground, as the case may be) than in a motor vehicle, which is bound to be held up for much of the day in rush-hour traffic.
Therefore, it seems to me wildly improbable that any bus entrepreneur would think that his way to profit was in trying to compete with a system which would obviously be preferred by most passengers. On the other hand, it seems to me equally, to take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that operators would wish to see how much could be derived for their
386
firms' benefit by making the maximum use of the existence of such a system by feeding their routes into it. After all, British Rail—which has in some ways been behind in all this—now provides at railway stations interchanges with buses, coaches and taxis. Much of the transport system everywhere is now integrated and the obvious advantages of the single ticket—which I believe all of us agree speeds up travel—would be perfectly possible through the arrangements made by any bus company with the appropriate Underground metro authority. It seems to me to be a curious notion that, on the one hand, this is a marvellous system but, on the other hand, a breath of competition by a slower service would somehow ruin it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords. I think this has all been extremely interesting. So many people have a great knowledge of the Newcastle Metro. I must confess that, although I was up there when it was starting, I have not been able to get back to Newcastle during the time that it has been running as efficiently as everyone tells me. People of all parties have told me how good it is. I have seen the videos and read the literature about it. I am also aware that a study has just been completed with the TRRL, the University of Newcastle, the Tyne and Wear County Council and the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive, and that this report is likely to be out by the end of October.
I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will already have some idea of what is in that report. In the nature of things Ministers normally know these things earlier, and I hope the noble Lord will either tell us about the findings of the report or wait until the report has been published before he gives a definitive answer on the amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Shepherd.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Shepherd that I did not realise whether or not Glasgow was included. When the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked whether Glasgow was included, there was a conflict: the Government Front Bench said "Yes", and my noble friend Lord Shepherd said "No". On the basis that Glasgow has the Underground, which is rather a small one, technically Glasgow would be included, but not because of the Clyde Rail, which would be closer to the Metro except that it is not controlled by the passenger transport authority. Nor is it one of the big breaks made by the Metro in that it started using much lighter stock than the old railway stock, to which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred. This changed things considerably. I could go on for a long time talking about the Glasgow Underground, but I will not, except to say that it was wonderful in its day. It still has a great part to play; but it was built in a very tight circle when Glasgow was a city with the highest density in the world, and literally thousands of people got on at every stop, so it could not help but pay. But now it is struggling.
When discussing the question of the Tyne and Wear Metro, I hope we shall not get confused with the idea of the Glasgow Metro being part of it—not at this stage, anyway. If this can be read into my noble friend's amendment, I hope there will be alterations if the Government feel it is fitting not to include Glasgow;

387
because from my knowledge of both—one directly and one at second-hand—they are quite different animals. One is much more a feeder in a longitudinal way, while the other is a convenience for those living in the city centre, and there is little way of comparing them.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to the importance of the customer. But in the area of the Metro the customer is two people—a customer and a member of the community. Perhaps he is a member of the community everywhere, but particularly in this case is he a member of the community. It irks me that sometimes we think only in terms of the immediate satisfaction of the customer, no matter what other strains are put on the life of the whole community, which will ultimately affect the customer himself.
From all the reports I have heard of the Metro, one of the great things has been the loosening up of the area for the shopkeepers, chambers of commerce and everyone. This has been a great success. It has brought more people into the centre. People come in, not by car or by bus but by Metro, to do their shopping, and the numbers are increasing fairly steadily. Asked if private buses could do the same, as I understand it the main reason why the Metro is so successful is its great flexibility of through-ticketing—something which in the whole of Britain we usually do appallingly badly. We have been appallingly late in introducing it. It is still annoying when, as has happened to me a couple of times, you are coming to, say, Euston and you get a 40p ticket, and you have to get off because you want to go to Foyle's. Then, at Tottenham Court Road you have to buy another 40p ticket to get to Euston from Foyle's. There are few cities in the world which do not have a system whereby you can buy a through ticket. We have been very bad at this in this country. Here we have the excellent example of the Tyne and Wear Metro, which has introduced this and has led the way, particularly in Britain.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd suggested that in terms of world example, the export order, there are people coming from all over the world to look at the Tyne and Wear Metro. It is very nice that people come to look at our urban transport. Our railways are better than people will admit. Here we have a good example of the beginning of a system which will be used more and more throughout the world. In his amendment all my noble friend asks is that some consideration be given to the preservation of this system, that some care be taken of the system. Perhaps he goes too far in asking for total exclusion, but I plead with the noble Lord the Minister that the department, and the TRRL, who are already involved in it, pay great attention to what is one of the gems of the British urban transport system. They should take great care that it is not destroyed. If the amendment of my noble friend is not sufficient, may I ask that, somehow or other, during the next stages of the Bill the noble Lord the Minister will take sufficient power to enable the Secretary of State to look after this system, perhaps comparing it with the other systems in the country and perhaps making this a trial area in addition to the trial areas we have already had, which were rather more disastrous.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, as a disabled person, may I confirm what the noble Lord has been saying?
388
What a marvellous thing the Metro is for anyone in a wheelchair! I went to Newcastle a fortnight ago with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and rode on the Metro. It was very easy to get on and off, with ramps and lifts. The Metro takes you into the city centre to do your shopping, meet your friends and so on. I hope the Government will think carefully before they do anything which might diminish the value of the service.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the thinking behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is that the advantages which have been obtained from the Tyne and Wear Metro can be preserved only if the Tyne and Wear PTA and their passenger transport executive continue to use direct control over every form of public transport in their area.
Like my noble friend Lord Beloff, I cannot accept that conclusion. It suggests that the benefits of this major contribution to the Tyne and Wear public transport infrastructure—your Lordships have spoken about these from many parts of the House, and the Government would be the last to deny that those benefits are very real—depend entirely on passengers being denied the right to make choices. What is more important, it ignores the very real advantages to passengers of an urban rail system, to which I have no doubt, incidentally, the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred, will also draw attention.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said that what we ought to do is to make sure we combine the benefits which there will be under the Bill with the benefits which we know there are from the Metro. I believe I can satisfy my noble friend in that particular respect. If I may repeat a point which I know I made in our earlier debate, the Tyne and Wear PTE will continue to own and operate the Metro and will continue to be able to provide revenue support for the Metro. Moreover, the right of the PTE to operate Metro services will not be affected in any way by the fact that other operators may be running services over any other similar routes.
Of course, I appreciate the concern of noble Lords about the role of feeder bus services to the Metro under deregulation. This, I know, has been discussed both inside and outside the House. There is no reason at all why the PTE should not enter into commercial agreement with bus operators to provide through-ticketing arrangements which make the best use of both bus and Metro services. The PTE will also be able to subsidise feeder bus services to Metro stations, subject to the tendering arrangements, if it considers that suitable services are not being supplied commercially.
As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, the arrangements for disabled people on the Metro itself will certainly continue. As noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, will know from having glanced at the tendering consultation document which has been sent out by the Department of Transport (and I believe I sent a copy to the noble Viscount), the tendering arrangements specifically include the right of an authority to specify how buses which are tendering for services must provide for elderly and disabled people.

389
Therefore, I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, moves an amendment wholly to exempt Tyne and Wear from the provisions of the Bill because in essence what I am saying is that the PTE will control the Metro, will continue to fund the Metro and will be able to make sure that there is a considerable element of integration by keeping its eye on the feeder bus services both to and from the Metro, and if necessary subsidising the services and making specific stipulations about how those services shall provide for elderly and disabled people in Tyne and Wear.
The other side of the coin is not very attractive. With great respect to the noble Lord, I am not sure that the effect of his amendment is the one that he meant. I believe that his wording brings Glasgow and perhaps the whole of Strathclyde PTA into the orbit of the amendment. Travel cards are available in Glasgow, which would appear to bring Glasgow and therefore Strathclyde within the orbit of the amendment. My noble friend Baroness Carnegy has explained very clearly how she believes that bus operators will find it in their interests to take passengers to underground stations in Glasgow.
It is for those reasons that I ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment. There is nothing between the noble Lord and the Government in wishing to see the enormous investment which has been put into the Metro in Tyne and Wear, with all the advantages there are for passengers and for the environment in general prospering in the future. I believe that, in co-ordination with the Bill, that will continue to happen.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, governments have introduced legislation which goes to the High Court only to find that, on what was legislated for, the High Court takes a different view. When I was seeking an amendment to eliminate Tyne and Wear from the Bill for a period of time I asked that the amendment be so drafted to solely apply to Tyne and Wear. The noble Baroness and the Minister say that the amendment is so drafted that possibly Strathelyde would be included. All I can say is that, like the Government, I have it wrong. However, the purpose was solely to have a debate on the Tyne and Wear situation which in my view is unique within the United Kingdom.
I was very grateful for, and I am sure people in the North were pleased to hear, the contribution this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I am sure that the system, which is now creating very great value, would never have got off the ground if the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, as Minister of the day, had not put his shoulders to it and found the necessary initial finance. I am sure that if he were to go to the region, as I am sure he does, he would see great satisfaction over what was a concept in 1972 and which is now coming into fruition in 1985 for the benefit of the community as a whole. There are not many Ministers who can claim that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way for a moment. I should like to say that I have visited the area since then and enjoyed the benefit of a free ticket. Sadly, it lasted for only one day.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, we might buy the noble Lord's vote by extending it. I do not know whether that would require a resolution from the county or the PTE.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked why we were worrying and said that if the rail and Metro services are good what do they have to lose against competition with the bus services. I suggest that, like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, should go to Tyne and Wear. The truth is that if one is designing a metro without an integrated system one would not design it as the Metro is now. It was not designed to stand on its own but to be part of an integrated system of buses, Metro and rail. Therefore, to say that the Metro, because it is good, can live viably in competition with the buses is to misunderstand the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent—
Lord Beloff: My Lords—
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, please let me finish because I think we should like to have a solution to our problem. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that if he and I were in business I do not know who would walk out of the partnership quicker. I suspect, however, that I would walk out because I do not think he fully understands the rigours of commercial need.
If we were owners of a bus company in Tyne and Wear now being set free by deregulation, would the noble Lord and I, sitting in partnership, run our buses into the Metro for the Metro to carry the passengers a fair distance but where we would receive only a marginal part of the total ticket receipts when, if we ran our buses direct from the pick-up point into the centre of Newcastle, we could take the whole? I am sure that the noble Lord and I would not be party to sharing the revenues with a competitor, the Metro.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as the noble Lord challenges my competence to judge the rigours of the market, I should remind him that my start in life was on a farm. I raised the money to get my own farm, I financed myself from nothing. If I do not understand the market, nobody does.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Lord started off better than I did. The first order that I took in life was for 30 pieces of 30 yards of Tootal's Riverena haircord, which I took in Singapore. That was, if I may say so, infinitely less than being in a farming community. The point I am seeking to put to the noble Lord is that if we were in partnership we would not wish to share our revenues with a potential competitor. The Metro would always be a potential competitor to our bus company. I suspect that what we would do, and what the bus companies will do, is maximise routes into the centre of Newcastle and not participate in any sharing arrangements with the Metro. I believe that will be the situation.
I have looked at the situation of Tyne and Wear. I am in difficulties with my noble friends on some parts of the Bill and with the Government on others. I am only putting to the House that here we have a concept which all parties have supported and where some £283 million have been invested, and it is only at this very

391
moment being discovered whether it is right and proper, whether it gives value for money, or whether it gives, as we believe, a value to the general area. I believe that under the Bill competition will destroy the whole concept of the integrated system, which has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and by successive governments. If the Government have their way that will be the end result, with destruction not only of the Metro but of the whole concept of integration and innovation about which the Government themselves have been speaking. I should not like to leave this assembly this evening without testing the mood of your Lordships' House.
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 132.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kaldor, L.

Attlee, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Auckland, L.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Bacon, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bernstein, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beswick, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Blyton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Briginshaw, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brockway, L.

Mellish, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Collison, L.

Morton of shuna, L.

Darwen, L.

Mountevans, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Munster, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rhodes, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Roberthall, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hampton, L.

Scanlon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Serota, B.

Hooson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hylton, L.

Somers, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stallard, L.

Ingleby, V.

Stedman, B.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

392

Teviot, L.

Whaddon, L.

Tordoff, L.

White, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Underhill, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Walston, L.

Winstanley, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Inglewood, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ingrow, L.

Aldington, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kimball, L.

Bauer, L.

Kintore, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bessborough, E.

Liverpool, E.

Bethell, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Birdwood, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McFadzean, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Caccia, L.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Merrivale, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Middleton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chesham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newall, L.

Cowley, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Peel, E.

Daventry, V.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Denning, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Digby, L.

Portland, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Reay, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Elibank, L.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Sharpies, B.

Foley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Suffield, L.

Glanusk, L.

Swansea, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Thomeycroft, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Trumpington, B.

Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Halsbury, E.

Vickers, B.

Hanson, L.

Vivian, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Westbury, L.

Harvington, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Henley, L.

Wise, L.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Holderness, L.

Yarborough, E.

Hood, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.41 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Amendments consequential on the abolition of road service licensing]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness) moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 135, line 5, at end insert—
("The Transport Act 1968
1. In section 159(1) of the Transport Act 1968 (interpretation)—

(a) for the definition of "bus service" there shall be substituted the following—

" 'bus service' means a local service other than one on which the passengers travel together on a journey, with or without breaks, from one or more places to one or more places and back"; and

(b) the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate place—

" 'local service' has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985;" ")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 351, 369, 370 and 373.
Amendment No. 12: Schedule 2, page 139, line 21, at end insert—
("The Transport Act 1968
1.—(1) The Transport Act 1968 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 96(10)(b), there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" the word "commissioner" and for the word "commissioners or authority think " the words "commissioner thinks".
(3) In section 98(3), there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" in both places the word "commissioner" and for the words "commissioners or authority think" the words "commissioner thinks".
(4) In section 99, there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" in subsections (1) and (8) the word "commissioner".
(5) In section 103(5), for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" there shall be substituted the word "commissioner".")
Amendment No. 351: Schedule 6, page 164, line 25, leave out from ("services") to end of line 26.
Amendment No. 369: Schedule 7, page 170, line 37, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 103(1), the definition of "licensing authority." ")

Amendment No. 370: page 170, line 39, column 3, leave out ("definition of "area bus service" ") and insert—

("definitions of the following expressions—

"area bus service"; excursion or tour"; express carriage" and "stage carriage"; and "road service licence".")

Amendment No. 373: page 171, line 34, at end insert—

("1980 c.34.

The Transport Act 1980

In Schedule 5, and in Part II, the paragraph amending the Transport Act 1968.")

These are minor technical amendments as a result of Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, may I ask a short question arising on Amendment No. 3? I attempted to give notice to the noble Earl but I am afraid in such a way that it reached him in a garbled
394
form. It arises out of two recommendations of the Renton Report, which is the locus classicus now on preparation of legislation. The first is that amendments to an Act shall be textual amendments, as this is in Amendment No. 3. That means that the amended Act can be amended by the amending Act and the two put together by a process of scissors and paste—I suppose now by a word processor. But the Renton Report went on to recommend the rapid reprinting of the amended Act as amended in its loose copy. Today that would be the copy in the Statutes in Force.
The question that I wanted to ask—and the noble Earl may not be able to answer it because I did not make sure that it reached him in a proper form—is whether an approach has been made to the editor of the Statutes in Force for the reprinting of the mass of legislation which has been amended by reference in this Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the noble and learned Lord an answer at the moment. I am seeking advice. Presumably the sooner we pass the Bill and get it on the statute book the sooner the alterations can take place.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I just say this? At the moment when an amendment of this kind is made it is not done by the Stationery Office or anyone of that kind; it has to be done by the law publishers—Butterworth's and the like—and we have to wait till we get Halsbury's Revised Statutes before we get it in an intelligible form. So I support what my noble and learned friend says: the sooner the Government get on with it, the better.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 135, line 20, at end insert—
("Competition Act 1980
2A. In section 3 of the Competition Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
"(11) Any decision resulting from a preliminary investigation by the Office of Fair Trading concerning a complaint of anti-competitive practice in the provision of local bus services as defined by the Transport Act 1985 shall be issued no later than two months from the date of the Office of Fair Trading receiving the complaint." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises out of a meeting that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and I had with the Bus and Coach Council (Private Operators Section) (Scotland)—people of high repute and great experience in the industry. They are concerned about an answer given at the Committee stage of this Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, which did not quite fill the Bill. In answer to a similar amendment he said that the point was already covered by Clauses 100 and 101, but the representatives of this council believe that that is only partly true and that it is in a dangerous way partly not true.
Although the point may be covered ultimately, the time taken for Clauses 100 and 101 to come into operation could be sufficient for unfair competition to destroy an operator who would be quite happy with normal competition; and the representatives gave a number of examples. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon,

395
used the example of an operator providing a commuter service free who immediately said he would stop doing so when the Office of Fair Trading investigated the matter. That would be only if the operator was compliant or willing, but the small private bus operators in Scotland feel that it is a great threat. The operator would not need to comply. He could hold out until a full report came through from the Office of Fair Trading, by which time a smaller operator could have been forced out of business.
Amendment No. 4 asks that:
"Any decision … by the Office of Fair Trading…shall be issued no later than two months from the date of the Office of Fair Trading receiving the complaint".
It would be of little consolation to an operator driven out of business and forced into bankruptcy by anti-competitive practices to read that the law had ultimately succeeded in making the competition fair. Therefore the Bus and Coach Council has fairly asked that the reality be looked at and a time limit be put on the decision as to whether there is a prima facie case of anti-competitive trading.
I hope that the Minister can help. I know that he has already been approached and that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, will also have something to say on this point. These very good operators, who are the backbone of the small private industry in Scotland, are extremely worried. I hope that the Minister will not give us the same, perhaps misguided, reply that we had at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment, which arose out of a discussion that we had in Scotland with this independent section of bus operators, who are not at all against the Bill. They are quite prepared to operate it, but they think that certain items in it will be very detrimental to small bus operators and above all to those in rural areas, and I think that they are right. We all know that bus operations in towns or covering large districts have a great many passengers and are on the whole highly successful. But it is extremely important that we should also consider the provision of local bus services—those used every day by people going to work, to shop, to school and to hospital. That is essential. The provision of local bus services is a vital community link, a fact that the Government have already conceded in the White Paper, from which I would like to quote:
"Since the great majority of the population live in towns, the biggest use of public transport is also in the towns, where buses carry large numbers of people to and from work and school in the peak hours. Indeed in our biggest cities, the high level of service throughout the day means that people can get to all the facilities the city offers without needing a car and so can enjoy all the benefits of city life. But policies for public transport must also take care of the interests of country dwellers. People who live in the country without a car depend on the bus for access to the local towns and for their social activities; maintaining these links is vital for the future of rural communities".
That is a quotation from the Government White Paper. Therefore, the provision of local bus services requires positive and effective protection against anti-competitive practices to ensure their continuity and stability.
This amendment carried no political overtone. It is straightforward and eminently practical. Indeed, it was
396
not opposed by the Minister at Committee stage. It was merely suggested that it was superfluous. Noble Lords supporting the amendment clearly do not consider it superfluous. I would go further and suggest that its exclusion without sufficient reason would not augur well for the fine traditions of this House. We want a Bill that can be understood by everyone. We want it to be an asset to everyone.
I should like to remind my noble friend the Minister that competition must be fair for the Bill to succeed. It would be extraordinarily disastrous if inadvertently this Government became the authors of indirect nationalisation. Accordingly, I invite the Government and noble Lords to support the amendment together with a further consequential amendment and so positively ensure fair and sustained competition in the provision of local bus services. This is essential in rural areas. In Scotland especially there are areas that have no railways. The proposal is therefore more important to those areas which cover a vast part of Scotland. It is vital that bus services should really meet the needs of the public. I hope that the Minister realises that a great many people are affected. The amendment is not in any sense opposed to the principle of the Bill. The amendment would add to its measure and improve it in many ways.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I recognise, of course, the positive intention behind the amendment which we discussed in Committee. I acknowledge the extra work that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and my noble friend Lady Elliot have put into the amendment during our 10 weeks' away. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, the point of the amendment is to ensure that the Office of Fair Trading reports quickly on complaints of anti-competitive practices so that operators are not driven out of business before any action can be taken. I have to ask the House to resist the amendment because I really do not think that it would be appropriate to make some special provision of this kind in competition legislation for the bus industry alone.
There is no such time limit in the Competition Act at present, and yet the Act applies to the whole range of British industries, from manufacturing through to the service industries. It would seem very strange, as I am sure the House will agree, to single out the bus industry for a very special arrangement. I would suggest to my noble friend Lady Elliot that not only would it be strange but it would also be unfair. A special time limit for the bus industry would tend to limit the resources available to examine complaints in other industries. I would suggest that the Office of Fair Trading should have the flexibility to decide which cases should have priority.
I take fully the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. If a particular bus service is in jeopardy—although I find it difficult at the moment to think of one service in the rural areas of Scotland that could be put in jeopardy in the circumstances we are talking about—I am sure that the Office of Fair Trading will treat it as a priority and will do its best to see that no one is put in jeopardy.
I would also point out, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara did in Committee, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned earlier, that in

397
cases where damage to competition is imminent or is actually taking place, the Office of Fair Trading can act very quickly and effectively. I repeat the case of January this year of the Grey Green coaches who were running a free commuter coach service. They dropped the practice very quickly—in a matter of days, let alone months—after informal discussions with the Office of Fair Trading. I would stress that the Office of Fair Trading can make it difficult and will make it difficult. So it is not necessarily a question of one operator being ready to acquiesce quietly in the demands of the Office of Fair Trading. The other side of the coin is that the Office of Fair Trading has sufficient powers to make life extremely difficult
I would stress the scope for informal discussions. Apart from any informal investigation procedures by the Office of Fair Trading, informal discussions can be very effective, as in the Grey Green case, avoiding the need for a formal investigation. But, again, I do not think that a statutory time limit would be appropriate. Apart from any other consideration, setting a completely fixed two-month limit for each and every inquiry would be unduly restrictive. As noble Lords will appreciate, cases vary. Investigations may raise complex issues. A period of two months might sometimes be too short for all the evidence to be collected and adequately assessed.
While acknowledging the intentions behind the amendment, I hope that it can be agreed that the Office of Fair Trading should be left with a flexibility of response which the present legislation gives it with regard to the bus industry as to any other industry.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, does the Minister realise that there is no sub-office of the Office of Fair Trading in Scotland at all? At the moment, every single application to the Office of Fair Trading has to go to London. This will delay things enormously. That is why I am so keen that we should have some provision that will not delay things; otherwise there will be no fairness because competition will have taken place long before the Office of Fair Trading has given an answer. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that this is a fact.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend. I do not necessarily agree that the fact that there is not a sub-office in Scotland makes the procedure any slower. I believe that the officers within the Office of Fair Trading are responsible people. If a case is ugent, it does not matter—with modern communications—whether it is in Wick, Edinburgh, Penzance or London. They will do the job as quickly as possible. It is wrong to say that just because they are in London this will delay matters. However, on the point of a sub-office in Scotland, I hope that my noble friend Lady Elliot will take up the proposal with the Department of Trade and Industry. I am all for creating more jobs.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, I am disappointed, as I am sure are the people of Scotland who asked us to raise this matter. They are not destructive people. They will be rather disappointed. I was sorry that the Minister could only give the same example that he
398
gave previously showing how the Office of Fair Trading worked expeditiously. Incidentally, he did not give us any idea of the time that the Office of Fair Trading normally takes to deal with a problem such as this. The worry expressed to us is that a bus service, particularly a local service, is unique. Unlike ordinary merchandise, it can be very easily and very quickly damaged by unfair competition. I am sorry that the Minister was not able to give us more. However, our having raised the matter may make the Office of Fair Trading more inclined to consider the importance of competition in the bus industry, particularly the local bus industry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 135, line 42, at end insert—
("6A. In section 53(1) of that Act (payment of expenses), for the words "II or III" there shall be substituted the words "or II" ")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 358 and 374.
Amendment No. 358: Schedule 6, page 167, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (7).
Amendment No. 374: Schedule 7, page 172, line 7, at end insert ("and the words "or section 45".").
These are minor technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 136, line 10, after ("(a)") insert ("of that Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.
Amendment No. 59: Clause 27, page 27, line 23, leave out ("the 1981 ") and insert ("that").
Amendment No. 60: Page 27, line 26, leave out ("the 1981 ") and insert ("that").
These are purely drafting improvements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 137, line 29, at end insert ("the provision of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 137, line 36, at end insert—
(" 14.—(1) Subject to any provision made by or under this Act, in any enactment or instrument passed or made before the commencement of section 1 of this Act—

(a) any reference to a stage carriage service shall be construed as a reference to a local service;

(b) any reference to an express carriage service shall be construed as a reference to any service for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward at separate fares which is neither a local service nor one provided by a vehicle to which subparagraph (2) below applies;

(c) any reference to a stage carriage shall be construed as a reference to a public service vehicle being used in the provision of a local service;

(d) any reference to an express carriage shall be construed as a reference to a public service vehicle being used to carry passengers for hire or reward at separate fares other than one being used in the provision of a local service; and

399

(e) any reference to a contract carriage shall be construed as a reference to a public service vehicle being used to carry passengers for hire or reward otherwise than at separate fares.

(2) When used in circumstances in which the conditions set out in Part III of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act are fulfilled, a public service vehicle carrying passengers at separate fares shall be treated, for the purposes of any enactment or instrument to which paragraph (d) or (e) of sub-paragraph (1) above applies, as being used to carry passengers otherwise than at separate fares.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Bill gets rid of archaic terms like "stage carriage", with their Dickensian ring, and this amendment ensures that where they occur in earlier legislation, particularly in statutory instruments and local Acts, they still have a meaning until they are in the fullness of time revised and amended. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, if my noble friend refers to the words "stage carriage" as archaic, may I ask what they will be replaced by? We have always known the words "stage carriage" as excellent words.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that this might be a convenient moment at which to adjourn the Report stage of this Bill. Perhaps I may suggest that we do not return to this particular Bill before ten to eight. I beg to move that consideration of amendments on Report stage be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1985
7.4 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations (1985 S.I. 1126) be annulled.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is my privilege to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It relates to the proposed annulment of the order known as the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1985 laid before Parliament on 26th July, the day another place rose for the Recess and only three days before we did. The regulations came into force on September 1st. Last year I protested that the regulations came into force before they could be debated in either House. The Minister apologised for the delay. He said that he could give no commitment for 1985 but that the department would do their best. Their best is very poor. The situation is exactly as it was last year. I hope that the Minister will not pretend that 26th July is an improvement on 1st August. Last year he said that 1st August was an improvement on 9th August which was the date that the regulations were laid in 1983. I do not consider that a good enough response. The whole point is that Parliament should have the chance to speak and vote against the regulations if they feel so inclined before they come into operation. It was in June that the Local Education Authorities and the National Union of Students were notified of this year's plans. That being so, it seems ridiculous that the regulations cannot be laid immediately.
I am aware that the Minister explained that the supplementary benefits allowances have to be announced before the regulations are finally laid; and that that announcement normally comes in June. However, it seems to us that as these affect only the dependants of students, and one particular section of the regulations—Part 3 of Schedule 2—deals with this, that that part if necessary could be held over and the rest laid in time for comment in July. Can the Minister tell me whether there is to be any effort to improve the timing next year? It would be a great help to local authorities as well as Parliament.
It seems to me that the Government have behaved in the most extraordinary and unacceptable manner over the whole subject of student support. Ministers have been uncertain in their action: plans have been put forward and as hastily withdrawn, and commitments have been made but not honoured. Last year we had the minimum award reduced from £410 to £205, and rumour said that that was a first step to abolishing it altogether. Both my noble friend Lord Mulley and I asked for assurances that this was not so. The Minister replied. I quote from col. 291 of the Official Report of 25th Ocotober:
"At this point I should like to satisfy both the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, by denying categorically that any decision has yet been taken to reduce the award of £205 for next year".
I should not like to question the honesty of the noble Earl because I am sure he is a very honest man. However, it was after that disconcerting, to say the least, that only 18 days later, on 12th November, Sir Keith Joseph announced changes in the awards for 1985–86—the abolition of the minimum award; and tuition fees to be means-tested, which were previously of course paid in full for all students. We know what happened there. The middle classes, and the Tory MPs representing them, squealed and, as a result, Sir Keith back-pedalled fast and on 5th December retreated completely on the fees question. At the same time he announced a review of the student award system. Of course we are glad about the tuition fees but are very uneasy over the ending of the minimum award which may well mean hardship for a fair proportion of students who relied on it as their parents could not be relied on to pay up the whole or even a major part of what was expected from them.
The National Union of Students Undergraduate Income and Expenditure Survey—acknowledged to be a well-researched document—showed that 13 per cent. of all students on mandatory awards received the minimum award. This means that at least 50,000 students are affected by this change. The scale of Government saving on this is £10 million.
The vacillation of the Government can be seen again in their proposal for a review of student financial support. This was promised in December of last year as I said. One of the options to be discussed was the introduction of student loans. The review was confidently expected by the early summer. Instead on 12th July I understand that the Cabinet vetoed a paper by Sir Keith advocating the introduction of loans. Since then we have heard nothing of the review. This shows to my mind gross inefficiency and lack of foresight and makes it very difficult indeed for students and families wishing to plan their finances ahead, as most families would, so to do.
A further complication for students and families has come from Mr. Norman Fowler's Green Paper on the Reform of Social Security. In this paper the Government's ultimate aim for students in relation to social security provision is clearly indicated, but progress towards the achievement of that aim is stated to be contingent upon the outcome of the DES's consultation exercise on student support. The Government's aim for students in relation to social security provision is that students should not have recourse to welfare benefits but that student support should be the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science. In the absence of any proposal from Sir Keith, students face the unenviable situation of being written out of the welfare state with no corresponding compensation from the grant system. This would mean that a major decision of educational importance would have been taken by the Secretary of State for Social Services and not by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. This is a quite new problem facing students and their families. In the light of this situation the NUS believes—and we would certainly support them in this—that the status quo whereby students may continue to claim welfare benefits should be upheld until the Government embark upon a full and independent review of student financial support covering the responsibilities not only of the DES but also of the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Employment. Could the Minister give some assurance that the status quo will be upheld until that full and independent review has taken place? Students and their families should not be left in this uncertain, unsatisfactory and difficult situation.
To turn to parental contributions, last year saw the beginning of higher contributions from parents in the middle and higher income brackets. Of course we want the richer members of the community to help the poorer. I want to make that clear in case the Minister comes back and says, "Surely the Labour Party is for a redistribution of wealth?" But the speed with which the Government have changed the contributions makes for difficulties for those in the middle income bracket; those with a joint income from husband and wife of £13,000 plus.
The level of parental contribution has gone up even more steeply for those with a joint residual income of £15,000 plus. This could well prove a deterrent to parents contributing to their children's educational costs for a period of three or four years. Anything that deters our more talented and gifted young people from attaining the education and training they need for the society—the highly technological society—in which we now live can only be to the nation's disadvantage. We are already very short of qualified people, particularly in engineering and science, where often more than three years' study is needed.
I should like to give one example of the sort of contribution now being asked of parents. Take a family where husband and wife together—together, remember—are earning £16,000 a year and have one child about to go to university and one aged 15. They would be left after tax and national insurance payments with a net income of £ 11,822. Their residual income for grant purposes would be £15,160. Their
402
contribution to the grant would be £1,229; that is, 10·7 per cent. of their net income.
This is a large percentage. It is not altogether surprising that parents are not always keen, probably are just not able, to pay. Forty three per cent. of parents assessed for parental contribution do not pay their contribution in full or in part. Is the Secretary of State not worried that we may be losing students of potentially high calibre, students that the nation desperately needs, from the higher education system? In these new regulations there is just one bonus, and this is only for the better off. No family will be asked to pay more than £4,000, and that will be a help to rich parents with more than one child in higher education.
Of course, we all know that the Government want to reduce public expenditure, but is as sudden and drastic a change as that begun last year and continued this year wise or fair? People need to plan ahead Since 1979–80 the Government have increased the amount parents are assessed to pay towards student grants by a staggering 270 per cent., corresponding to an increase from £84 million in 1979–80 to £230 million in 1985–86. The Government, by way of comparison, can expect to pay £527 million on student financial support in maintenance awards and travel costs, so as much as 43 per cent. of the total bill for support is paid—or should be paid—by parents.
I now want to say something on travel costs. The system for reimbursing them was changed last year when a fixed amount of £105 was put into each grant for students living away from home and £ 160 for those at home. Great anxiety was expressed that this would mean hardship for many students, even if a few got a little benefit. It was "rough justice", as Mr Peter Brooke admitted.
Concern has been expressed by a wide variety of groups: the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics, the ACC and the AMA. Pressure is put on accommodation near colleges, possibly to the detriment of other sections of the community. Evidence from the universities of Kent, Lancaster, Warwick, Hull and East Anglia shows that significant numbers of students are unable to find accommodation near to their institution and are incurring considerable expenses for daily travel into college.
What several of us asked last year was that some survey or monitoring should be carried out to assess what effect the new arrangements for student travel were having, particularly as Sir Keith said in July last year that no assessment had been made before the change. Could we please be told if the department has made, or is intending to make, any survey? Mr. Peter Brooke in fact gave a commitment to monitor the effect. Is that commitment to be honoured? 1 know that the University of London has conducted a survey, but the results are not yet published.
After persistent criticisms of the new system in Northern Ireland, a survey was made which revealed that 37 per cent. of students were adversely affected, but as the survey included 13.5 per cent. of students on minimum awards who had never been able to claim reimbursement for travel the facts on which the survey was based were not satisfactory and the figure of 3 7 per cent. was no doubt a considerable underestimate of those suffering hardship.
The value of the main rate of grant has again fallen as the increase of 3 per cent. is well below the rate of inflation at 5, nearer 6, per cent. To be equal to the 1979–80 level an increase of 17 per cent. would be necessary. The grant is worth nearly a fifth less than six years ago, precisely when accommodation costs in the university sector for self-catering accommodation have risen by 68 per cent. and in the public sector by 73 per cent. This is worrying.
A student needs funds for essential books and equipment, and the price of these has risen, too. The erosion of the grant means that students are having to seek other sources of income. Part-time work is by no means always available. Loans and overdrafts from banks are resorted to, and quite large debts result. In the Daily Telegraph only last week there was an account of 72 students at Kent University with debts ranging from £20 to £4,000. They were being told to pay up or lose their place. The NUS survey back in 1983 put Britain's undergraduate overdraft at £13 million, and it is thought that that figure would now stand at £ 15 million.
The banks are encouraging students to make use of all their lending facilities, and are competing with each other for custom. I picked up a brochure in my own bank in Cambridge last week and it certainly is very seductive and enticing. It really is a case of loans by the back door, and may be leaving students at the end of their career in higher education with a very bad debt.
Having made a number of complaints and criticisms of the Government regulations, I must admit that there are two of them we are pleased about. One is that the periods when the student was in receipt of training under the YTS, or in receipt of severe disablement allowances, are to count as periods during which he has supported himself out of his earnings; and the other is that in certain circumstances a parental contribution will no longer be applicable where the parents are residing overseas. But apart from that we feel that the Government have got themselves in a real tangle over the whole question of student support. That applies as much, if not more so, to l6-to 19-year-olds as to those in higher education whom we are considering today. It has been a sad story of muddle with no well-thought-out strong and consistent policy line being followed.
I hope Ministers are feeling some shame about the events of the last year and that a proper review of student support will be made in conjunction with the DHSS and the Department of Employment very soon, and that we shall have the review before us early in 1986. Can the Minister give us any hope on that? I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations (1985 S.I. 1126) be annulled.—(Baroness David.)
7.19 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, may I first apologise that I was not here for the first few moments of this debate? I should like to say that we on these Benches are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for moving this Prayer (if that is what you do
404
to a Prayer) so that we may have the opportunity to express some of our feelings on the contentious question of the present economies. The noble Baroness has voiced with admirable force nearly all the feelings which we have on these Benches and I have very little to add to them. But I should like to speak briefly on three aspects of the current situation which are of particular concern to us.
I have no exact computation of the total sum likely to be saved by these economies, but I understand that it is likely to be about £25 million. Can we have an assurance from the noble Earl that this sum will be, or is being, spent on improvements to our scientific resources as originally proposed by the Secretary of State?
This brings me to the second point I want to stress and here there is an irony. The removal of the minimum award and the swingeing increases in the parental contribution cannot help acting as a disincentive to students aspiring to higher education. One may argue that a determined young person will find a way, but many young people of 18 are influenced by their parents and cannot hold out against a refusal to pay the full amount and against strong discouragement. The sum result may be that when the promised scientific resources become available there will not be enough students to take advantage of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said in a debate in your Lordships' House:
"If we are to see, as I fear we shall, more students forced into debt by the inability or even the unwillingness of their parents to pay, it will not comfort us much at the university to think that their hardship is supporting the research councils. If this change were in turn to discourage some from going to university to read science the decline in our science base would be reinforced.".
I should like to say in parenthesis that the necessity that is put upon the students of working to make both ends meet can undermine their efforts at university. I heard only today of a young man whose father firmly believed that he would have achieved a better degree had he not had to spend his vacations working in order to survive. It seems to me that this is one more example of the Government's cheeseparing, the overall effect of which will do more to depress and discourage enterprise—in this case higher education—than to give it fresh impetus by constructive redistribution of financial resources.
So what is the answer, assuming the necessity of economies? Nobody can pretend that the present system has ever been entirely satisfactory and the present piecemeal undermining of it is less satisfactory than ever before. I echo the words of the noble Baroness in referring to the undertaking that was made by the Secretary of State last December that a review should be taken of the whole student support system with a view to possible radical change. We are awaiting the results of this review, which hopefully will make proposals that are more constructive and encouraging to young people than the present measures.
Lord Darwen: My Lords, it is some 35 years since I made my maiden speech and this is the first speech that I have made from the Liberal Benches. I am afraid my colleagues will not be very pleased with what I am going to say. When I went to Manchester University I had no grant. My father paid no fees for me. What I had to live on was the money that my wife earned

405
through taking in student lodgers, which was very little. I acknowledge that in those days our expectations of living were very much lower than they are today. We had no car, no freezer, no fridge, no hoover, and so forth, but we got along. We were quite happy and 1 worked hard. We had a family. I really feel very strongly indeed that students today ought to earn what they get. They ought to earn it by their diligence in achieving a good degree or whatever it is they go in for. The grant should only be made if they perform. I favour the repayment of grants by those students who do well and gain very high paid jobs.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to debate the subject of student support this evening. I shall try to answer her questions about late timing, but I am afraid she will not be very satisfied at the end. The Government recognise the difficulties that a late announcement can bring and are as anxious as are the LEAs that the new rates of grant and parental contribution scales are issued as early as possible. For 1985–86 we released the new contribution scales and gave an indication of the change in the main rates dates in November 1984. The timing of the announcement of detailed rates will inevitably vary from year to year depending largely on the scale of any changes that we wish to make and the need to consult other interested departments. We had hoped to achieve an early announcement this year but the interdepartmental consultations held us up. In the event, 31st May was the earliest date by which the main rates could be issued. As the noble Baroness herself said, supplementary allowances cannot be calculated until DHSS rates and supplementary benefit are published. It was not until mid-June that supplementary benefit rates became available this year.
As to the awards regulations themselves, these were formally laid before Parliament, as the noble Baroness said, on 26th July. I was going to say that this was a slight improvement on 1984, but it is a considerable improvement on the year before when it was 9th August. So at least the noble Baroness could give us credit for that. The date of the announcement of supplementary benefit rates prevents regulations being laid much earlier, but I have much sympathy with what the noble Baroness said and I shall certainly take the suggestion she made, what might at face value seem to be a good idea, to my right honourable friend in the hope that something can be done.
Student support is an important area of higher education policy, and one which has provoked much discussion in the past year. This debate provides an opportunity for the Government to explain the changes to the regulations which have been made this year and to give an indication of our general approach to the issue of student support.
It may be convenient to deal with the second issue first. As my right honourable friend announced last December, the Government have undertaken a fundamental review of the present arrangements for student support, concentrating on first degree and sub-degree levels. In the course of this review, the Government have examined the possibility of
406
introducing student loans, but have rejected this option. We are nevertheless looking at other ways of making improvements to the awards system, and my right honourable friend is considering the publication later this year of a consultative paper which would invite views on the issues raised.
It remains the case, however, that our awards system is still very generous when compared with those in most other countries of the western world. Here I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, that I do not think the Government want to go as far as he does along the line of making students earn their own living as they work their way through college. Had we all the money in the world we should like to spend it.
Few other countries provide mandatory grant support at our level and for such a wide range of students as is applicable here. There are now some 450,000 students who are in receipt of a mandatory award in Great Britain and public expenditure on their maintenance alone is expected to total some £530 million in the current year. This leaves out of account the much larger subsidy still which is given through the provision of free tuition, of which the aggregate cost is in excess of £1,500 million a year.
It is against this background—and the overriding need to curb public expenditure on all fronts—that the changes in grant rates this year should be viewed. These have in general been increased by 3 per cent. This adjustment reflects what the Government believe to be a fair balance between the need to meet the rising cost of being a student and the total expenditure which taxpayers and ratepayers can reasonably be expected to provide. It is worth noting that the overall direct contribution of students and their families towards a student's higher education is, on average, only some 10 per cent. of the total expenditure on maintenance and tuition costs. The balance is met by individual taxpayers, most of whom are unlikely to benefit from the higher education which they are helping to pay for. Whether or not one may think that the cost of higher education is now fairly distributed between the taxpayer and the student beneficiary, it is right that students should share some of the burden which we all have to shoulder in continuing to hold down public expenditure and thus live within our means as a nation.
Although the main rate of grant has been increased by 3 per cent., the travel element incorporated in the grant has been uprated by 5 per cent. Noble Lords will recall that last year new arrangements were introduced for meeting students' travel costs, which have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David, whereby the previous reimbursement system was replaced by the inclusion in the grant of a flat-rate element for travel expenses. My right honourable friend is satisfied that the new arrangements are generally working well. We have said we will look at this, but we would wish to see the present system in operation for some time before deciding whether any further changes are called for.
I now turn to the question of parental contributions. Here again the Government have sought to strike a fair balance. The parental contribution scale has been indexed so that about the same number of parents will be assessed for a contribution this year as last. We have also sought to protect families earning less than around

407
average income from the real increases resulting from the steeper scale that has been introduced. This has been done by retaining the lower part of the scale at its previous rate. We have, however, steepened the slope of the contribution scale for families earning more than average income, thereby increasing their parental contribution in real terms. Our general aim in this respect is to introduce a more progressive, and therefore fairer, contribution scale.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, drew attention to what she regarded as being the plight of those parents from the middle income levels. Ministers appreciate that the increases in parental contribution are in some cases steep. However, the new scales are aimed at carrying further the approach which we adopted for the 1984–85 settlement; namely, that higher contributions should be required from those best able to pay, so that the families with lower incomes could be protected from the savings that we had to make. I think here the noble Baroness was, in some way at any rate, in agreement with us. I should have found it far more difficult to defend the continuation of a regressive contribution scale, whereby the higher the income of the family the smaller the proportion of their incremental income they were asked to contribute.
Noble Lords will also recall that the Government announced last year that parents at the upper end of the scale would be assessed to contribute towards designated tuition fees. However, following the deep concern expressed in many quarters that the increase in parental contribution was too sharp, we decided that it was right to withdraw this proposal.
The Government have also decided to abolish the minimum maintenance award of £205. I think the noble Baroness was very kind and fair to me in saying that I was probably not being dishonest, but that I did not know what was going on. I did actually know what was going on. I can give the absolute assurance that at the time of last year's debate no decision had been taken to abolish the minimum maintenance award. The fact that it was taken shortly afterwards I think excuses me from having to apologise to the House in any way.
I know that this decision has been a source of concern, but we concluded that it would not be equitable to insulate higher income families from increased contributions when higher contributions than hitherto would be assessed from parents whose incomes are lower. This measure also is in line with our general aim of introducing a more progressive system. However, although higher income families may be asked to pay for the whole of a student's maintenance needs, those families with more than one award holder will benefit from a limit on their overall contribution of £4,000.
I think I can now, partly at any rate, give the undertaking for which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, asked me. That is that, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last November, savings from these changes will not only assist in meeting the costs of awards and other unavoidable commitments but will also contribute towards increased provision for science and technology in the universities and research councils.
408
The noble Baroness, Lady David, also asked me about students and the benefit arrangements. I can say that any change that may occur to students' entitlement to benefits would of course be a matter to which Ministers would give due consideration, taking into account the outcome of the review of student support or, indeed, any consultations which may follow it.
I turn now to the other changes in the regulations before us today. These changes are less contentious, and I believe that many of them have been generally welcomed. Indeed, some of them have been welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, this evening. First, the Government have listened sympathetically to the case made on behalf of certain refugees and other students whose parents might normally be assessed for parental contributions. We know that such parents could face difficulties in their home countries if they were contacted for assessment purposes, and that in some countries where these parents reside it can be extremely difficult for money to be sent to the United Kingdom. The regulations have therefore been amended to allow local education authorities to waive the assessment of a parental contribution where they are satisfied that it might result in jeopardy to the parents or where it would not be reasonably practicable for the parents to send an assessed contribution to this country.
The Government have also responded to representations that periods spent on the Manpower Services Commission's Youth Training Scheme should be counted for the purpose of establishing independent status under the awards regulations. The regulations before us today have therefore been amended to give effect to this change. In addition, periods spent in receipt of severe disability allowance will henceforth be counted for the purposes of establishing independent status.
The regulations have also been amended so that students will be allowed to retain without limit any term-time earnings without any effect on their grant. Under the previous regulations there was a limit on such income of £400 without reductions in grant. This amendment is consistent with this Government's stated aim of encouraging greater self-support by students. That may give some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Darwen.
Finally, the regulations have been amended to bring the assessment of income more closely into line with tax practice. As a result of last year's Budget, income derived from bank interest is now paid to savers net of tax, as has long been the case with income from building society interest. We have therefore amended the regulations to provide for any interest received net of tax to be grossed up by the standard rate of tax.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible and modest package of amendments. Changes of a more radical nature would have been inappropriate in view of the wide-ranging review now being undertaken of our student support system.
In conclusion, I commend the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1985 to your Lordships, and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her Prayer.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister just one question? I am not quite clear whether this review, which is still promised, is to be undertaken by the three Secretaries of State—the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security and the Secretary of State for Employment. If this is not to embrace all those three, it does not seem to me that is to be a very satisfactory review. Also, when is this review going to be with us?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the review is being undertaken by the Department of Education and Science. They may well be consulting other departments; I do not know. I can only say that the review is being considered by my right honourable friend and it may—I cannot put it stronger than that—be published later this year.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his quite lengthy explanation and reception of what has been said by the three noble Lords who have spoken. I still feel that it is not very satisfactory about the lateness of the laying of the regulations, because although the LEAs may know roughly what the regulations are to contain they cannot do their detailed sums and get their grant cheques out to the students until they really know the fine detail. That makes it very difficult, not only administratively for the LEAs but also for the students, who may not receive their cheques until too late.
As regards the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, I think that the savings are rather greater than he said, and in fact I should have thought considerably greater. I was very surprised by the figure of £1,000 million a year, which the Minister said the DES gave in tuition fees. I should like to query that figure because it is certainly very different from the one which I thought was right. However, it may be that I had better leave that point. Perhaps the Minister can write to me and tell me how that figure is made up. I should be very interested to hear, as it is so very different from the one that I had.
However, as we know that these regulations are now in force, I think I must perforce withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.40 until 7.50 p.m.]

Transport Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 2 [Local Services]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
("(5) Subsections (5)(b)(c) and (6) of section 1 of the 1981 Act (meaning of "fares") shall apply for the purposes of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This amendment is purely technical and I believe that it needs no explanation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Traffic commissioners]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 20.
Amendment No. 11: Page 3, line 31, at end insert—
("Publication of information by traffic commissioners.
5.—(1) Every traffic commissioner shall publish, in such form and at such times as may be prescribed, such information with respect to the exercise, or proposed exercise, of any of his functions under this Act or the Transport Act 1985 as may be prescribed.
(2) Where the traffic commissioner for a traffic area publishes information under this section he shall—
(a) send a copy of the publication—

(i) to every chief officer of police, Passenger Transport Executive and local authority whose area falls partly or wholly within that traffic area; and

(ii) where that traffic area falls wholly or partly within London, to London Regional Transport; and

(b) make a copy of it available (by post if required and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed) to anyone who asks for one.
(3) In this section "local authority" means—

(a) in England and Wales, the council of any non-metropolitan county, any district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London; and

(b) in Scotland, any regional or islands council." ").

Amendment No. 20: Clause 6, page 7, line 25, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
This amendment is a welcome addition, I hope, to the Bill and fulfils an undertaking given to my noble friend Lord Teviot to put on a statutory basis the publication by traffic commissioners of information about registrations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 11:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments consequential on section 3]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 12:
[Printed earlier: col. 393.]
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment already, my Lords. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, may I apologise to the Government Front Bench, which is virtually the House? I had meant to say on Amendment No. 11 how much we appreciated the fulfilment of the commitment that the traffic commissioner should publish reports in an adequate form. This is strictly out of order but nobody is listening. I wanted to express the appreciation of those who took part in the relevant debates in Committee for the fulfilment of those promises in Amendment No. 11.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness White): My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to say anything to put himself in order on Amendment No. 12?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that Amendment No. 12 is unexceptionable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 12):
Schedule 2, page 139, line 21, at end insert—
("The Transport Act 1968
1.—(1) The Transport Act 1968 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 96(10)(b), there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority". the word "commissioner" and for the words "commissioners or authority think" the words "commissioner thinks".
(3) In section 98(3), there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" in both places the word "commissioner"; and for the words "commissioners or authority think" the words "commissioner thinks".
(4) In section 99, there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" in subsections (1) and (8) the word "commissioner".
(5) In section 103(5), for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" there shall be substituted the word "commissioner".").
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 142, line 37, leave out from ("or") to end of line 40.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13,1 wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 18, 25, 293, 359, 375 and 376.
Amendment No. 18: Page 7, line 5, leave out from first ("to") to second ("the").
Amendment No. 25: Clause 7, page 9, line 34, leave out subsection (15).
Amendment No. 293: Clause 119, page 124, line 16, after ("Act") insert—
("(b) traffic regulation conditions determined under section 7 of this Act;").
Amendment No. 359: Schedule 6, page 167, line 11, at end insert—
("(7 A) In section 56(1) (records of licences etc.) there shall be added, at the end, the words "and shall allow the record to be inspected at all reasonable times by members of the public".").
Amendment No. 375: Schedule 7, page 172, line 8, column 3, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("in subsection (1)").
Amendment No. 376: Page 172, line 9, column 3, at end insert ("and subsection (2)").
Before I speak to those amendments, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his words on Amendment No. 11. These amendments tidy up the statutory requirements on the traffic commissioners to keep records and to make them available. I would draw your Lordships' attention briefly to the substantive amendment which is No. 359, the amendment of Section 56 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 by Schedule 6. Section 56, as it stands, allows members of the public to inspect records only if they have reasonable grounds for doing so; and there is a power to prescribe a fee although it is not currently used. The amendment would allow anybody to inspect the records of licences, registrations and traffic regulation conditions free of charge. Clause 119(3) brings registrations in London licences within the section and the amendment to Clause 119 would bring in traffic regulation conditions as well in place of the separate reference to the Clause 7(15). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 143, line 30, at end insert—
("The London Regional Transport Act 1984
In Schedule 5 to the London Regional Transport Act 1984, there shall be substituted—

(a) in paragraph 11(5), for the word "commissioners", where it first occurs, the word "commissioner" and for the words "those commissioners" the words "the commissioner";

(b) in paragraph 11(8), for the word "commissioners", in both places, the word "commissioner"; and

(c) in paragraph 12(7), for the word "commissioners" the word "commissioner".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment substitutes references to the traffic commissioner in the singular to references to the traffic commissioners in the plural in those places where the phrase occurs in the London Regional Transport Act except for Section 45 which is replaced by Clause 39 of this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Inquiries held by traffic commissioners]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 17, at end insert—
("(4A) Where a traffic commissioner holds an inquiry he may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed and subject to any provision made under subsection (4B) below, make such order as he thinks fit as to the payment, by such party to the inquiry as he thinks fit, of costs incurred by him or by the Secretary of State in connection with the holding of the inquiry.
(4B) Regulations may make provision, in relation to orders under subsection (4A) above, as to—

(a) the method of calculating the amount of any costs incurred as mentioned in that subsection; and

(b) the maximum amount which may be ordered to be paid under such an order.

(4C) Any amount so ordered to be paid by any person may be recoverable from him—

(a) in England and Wales, as a debt due to the Crown; or

(b) in Scotland, by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross who persuaded us in Committee to look hard at his proposal to give the traffic commissioner power to award costs in order to deter delaying tactics and similar abuses; for instance, by people called before him for possible disciplinary action. We thought carefully about this as we promised and concluded that there was real merit in the idea. Hence this amendment. There are a few things that I should like to say about it.
First, it gives power to the commissioner to recover only his costs and those of the department in providing accommodation and clerical assistance to the inquiry. It does not enable the commissioner to order one party to pay the costs of another. We understand from the commissioners that they would not welcome the responsibility of adjudicating in such a way, and of course in many PSV operator licensing cases, particularly the disciplinary ones of which we are primarily thinking, there is only one party, the person who the commissioner has called to the inquiry. Secondly, the regulations we shall make under Subsection 4(a) will limit the recovery of costs to cases where the person against whom the award is made has acted vexatiously, frivolously, or the like.
The vast majority of people appearing at commissioners' inquiries for whatever reason need not bear an increased expense. Indeed, they and all licence

413
holders will benefit if the commissioners' costs are kept down because all costs are met from fees. We see this power as a deterrent—and we hope an effective one—and not a way of raising money. Thirdly, the regulations will lay down the way in which costs are calculated and a maximum. This will prevent the commissioners' task from being too invidious. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for this amendment. I am very glad that he is proposing that there should be regulations because most of these matters need to be looked at from time to time without primary legislation; and regulations would be a very good way of doing it. He will I am sure make certain that the department consults widely before regulations are made, and indeed before they are revised if that should be necessary.
I take his point that this is entirely a matter of deterrence. From what I know—and I think I said to the House when in Committee that I have information from somebody who sits extensively as a traffic commissioner—there are occasions when deterrence would be a very valuable matter to have as a method of preventing people from wasting a lot of time. I quite agree with him that in most of the tribunals where powers to award costs are already available the issue very seldom arises largely because the power to award costs is available and it therefore works. I am delighted that the Government have been persuaded by this argument. I should like to thank the Government very much for accepting the principle of this and I hope it works.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Registration of local services]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 2, leave out second ("a") and insert ("an unconditional").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16 I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 17 and 57.
Amendment No. 17: Page 6, line 5, at end insert—
("(4A) in subsection (4) above "unconditional", in relation to a PSV operator's licence, means a licence which does not have attached to it a condition imposed under section 26(1) of this Act prohibiting, or having the effect of prohibiting, the operator from using vehicles under the licence to provide the service to which the application in question relates.").
Amendment No. 57: Clause 26, page 26, line 27, at end insert—
("(2A) Where the effect of a condition attached to a PSV operator's licence under subsection (1) above is that the operator of a local service registered under section 6 of this Act is prohibited from using vehicles under the licence to provide that service, the traffic commissioner attaching the condition may—

(a) cancel the registration; or

(b) where the service is registered with another traffic commissioner, direct that it be cancelled.

(2B) Where a direction is given under subsection (2A)(b) above, it shall be the duty of the traffic commissioner with whom the service is registered to cancel the registration.").
This is a group of amendments, the inspiration for which came from my noble friend Lady Vickers. In Committee, my noble friend moved an amendment including provision for refusal of registrations by
414
operators with certain conditions on their licences. This alerted us to a loophole which could have undermined the purpose of Clause 26(1) which empowers traffic commissioners to attach conditions to licences, restricting or prohibiting the use of vehicles to provide local services. It is a principle of Clause 6 that only a person lawfully entitled to operate a service can register it, although there is always the possibility of sub-contracting to another licensed operator.
These amendments seek to strengthen that principle by preventing an operator from registering a service that would contravene a condition in the licence. Related to this is the amendment to Clause 26 providing for the cancellation of services registered by an operator who has subsequently had a condition attached under Clause 26(1). We do not expect commissioners often to have to take stern measures—indeed we hope they never will—but if they do they must be effective. I beg to move.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Minister. I think it will be very useful indeed to the authorities concerned and I am grateful to the Government for having accepted the arguments that were put foward at Committee stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 17:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 18:
[Printed earlier: col. 411.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 18):
Page 7, line 5, leave out from first ("to") to second ("the").
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 24, at end insert—
("(kk) for excluding from the application of this section services which are—

(i) excursions or tours; or

(ii) excursions or tours falling within a prescribed class.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 19, I should like, with the leave of the House, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 28.
Amendment No. 23: Clause 7, page 8, line 1, leave out from ("service") to end of line 2 and insert ("means any local service to which section 6 of this Act applies").
Amendment No. 28: Clause 12, page 14, line 42, at end insert—
("(5A)In subsection (5)(b) above "local service" does not include an excursion or tour.").
Noble Lords will recollect that Clause 2 defines a local service as one on which passengers may make journeys of less than 15 miles in a straight line or tours which do not go more than 15 miles from their starting place. We have during the summer been giving a lot of thought to the details of registration of these services and have consulted widely. We have come to feel that to require all excursions and tours which fall within the local service definition to be registered would mean a

415
lot of work for operators and traffic area officers and would in most cases have very little value. Excursions and tours have always been treated differently from other services and even under the tight system of licensing which existed up to 1980 there was no obligation to run a tour which could be cancelled if there were no demand. The basic concept of registration is that it embodies a commitment to run as registered and it would be something of a contradiction in terms to require a commitment to run an excursion. We are therefore very attracted by the idea of exempting the bulk of excursions and tours from registration.
We are aware, however, as has been pointed out to us by several people in the course of consultation, that the difference between excursions and tours and other local services is blurred at the edges and that a total exemption from the registration requirement might lead to evasion of disciplines in the Bill, traffic regulations and the rest. We are therefore considering whether a distinction between those excursions and tours which are so like ordinary local services that they really should be registered and the others can be made—for instance, by requiring the registration of any service which is run fortnightly or more frequently.
The amendments before the House will enable us to make this distinction if, after full consideration, we decide that it is right and workable. I should perhaps point out that excursions and tours are not eligible for fuel duty rebate, rural bus grant or service subsidies. There is therefore not much danger that operators will seek to pretend that services which are not excursions or tours are. The danger is rather that they will dress up excursions and tours as local services in order to obtain the rebate, and that is something for which we are vigilant. I should also point out that these excursions and tours will remain local services as defined in Clause 2. Most importantly, this means that they will require local service licences in London.
With this amendment we are taking ones to Clauses 7 and 12. That to Clause 7 is consequential. Traffic regulation conditions bite only on registrable services. Other bus operations are of course subject to the Road Traffic Regulation Act powers of local authorities.
The amendment to Clause 12 ensures that taxis will be able to run services under that clause only when they are subject to the disciplines that the registration system imposes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 20:
[Printed earlier: col. 410.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 10.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 20):
Page 7, line 25, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
Clause 7 [Applications of traffic regulation conditions to local services subject to registration under section 6]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 45, at end insert—
(" () If any authority asks him to do so the traffic commissioner for any traffic area may determine conditions as to the use of available bus stations ("bus station conditions") which must be met in the provision of services in the area to which those conditions are expressed to apply in order to prevent traffic congestion in streets or other detriment to amenities.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps it will be possible to take with Amendment No. 21, Amendments Nos. 22, 23A and 24.
Amendment No. 22: Page 8, line 1, after ("section") insert (" "authority" and ").
Amendment No. 23A: Page 8, line 1, leave out ("has the same meaning") and insert ("have the same meanings")
Amendment No. 24: Page 8, line 2, at end insert ("and references to traffic regulation conditions or traffic authorities in subsections (3), (5), (7), (9) to (11), (14) and (15) of this section shall include references to bus station conditions or (as the case may be) authorities.").
The grounds for imposing traffic regulation conditions under Clause 7(4) are restrictive since they can only be imposed in order to prevent danger or to reduce traffic congestion. I do not think these powers are really wide enough to compel operators to use bus stations, which is desirable on quite different grounds from these. Bus stations do not only provide a valuable terminal facility but they also enable buses to lay over for crews to take meal breaks, to effect a changeover or to trade in their money in a secure environment. All functions like those are better undertaken in a bus station than in the open street.
In addition, considerable investment has been made in bus stations by public authorities and in some cases by private concerns, which includes commercial development. Rents for retail shop units have been negotiated on the basis that a considerable number of services would use the bus station, thus providing their clientele with the use of shops and other facilities, and the commercial viability of these units could be jeopardised. The amendment proposed would therefore give the traffic commissioners power, by the imposition of traffic regulations on amenity grounds, to compel operators to use bus facilities.
It should be said, of course, that traffic commissioners already have powers with regard to local authority bus stations to adjudicate and determine departure charges. The charges are made on the number of departures. It might possibly be considered wise for these powers to be used in all bus stations in future and, taken alongside the ability of the traffic commissioners to make traffic regulation conditions, some justice and control could be exercised to ensure that all operators are treated alike and that passengers have the best possible amenities provided.
The amendment to Clause 79 would reinforce this need by ensuring that in those cases where a company does retain the ownership of a bus station it is made readily available to other companies who feel there would be an advantage to them in using it, and the safeguards available via the traffic commissioners would protect individual interests.
We had a long debate on the effects of congestion in parts of London around bus stations. Of course it

417
would be even worse if there were no bus stations and if the buses merely lined up in the street and there was no vacant ground such as many of them at present use. I hope the Minister will look at this with some sympathy and see whether perhaps he can come part of the way towards meeting the problem. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, promised to return on Report to his concern as to the effects of the abolition of road service licensing on the use of bus stations. I have listened with interest to what he has said, but I must confess that I am unconvinced that the powers of compulsion which are in these amendments ought to be put into the Bill.
I wonder whether in reply I might just say a word about our general policy on the use of bus stations after deregulation. It is that publicly owned bus stations should be available to all local service operators without discrimination and that privately owned bus stations should be governed by competition legislation. I shall in due course be moving Amendment No. 287 with this in view.
We do not want any local service operator to be kept out of a bus station which has room for him, and for the use of which he is prepared to pay an appropriate price. But while we do not want operators to be kept out of bus stations, we are diffident about compelling them in. After all, not all bus stations are sited where the passengers want to be taken or where they want to be picked up. Some local authorities have spent very large sums of money on stations which have become very much like white elephants, but I do not think that operators and passengers should suffer in consequence. The result of compelling bus operators to take passengers to an inconvenient place would be the same as the result of so much well-intentioned, but ill-thought-out, planning—more expensive services and loss of passengers.
Of course, we agree that the problems caused by large numbers of buses stopping in the street may outweigh the convenience to the passenger, and we also agree that pedestrianisation can greatly improve the environment in parts of city centres. But I would put it to the noble Lord that surely the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is available for local authorities who want to pedestrianise or, indeed, to bring an additional amount of control into traffic in their locality, and the provisions in Clause 7 for traffic regulation conditions to be imposed speedily by the traffic commissioners supply a solution to problems of danger or congestion caused by excessive numbers of buses trying to use one or two bus stops. We really do not think that these powers need strengthening in the way proposed in these amendments.
Local authorities may, quite properly, have a policy of encouraging the use of bus stations, and may implement it by providing attractive facilities or reasonably low charges, and, as I said, local authorities can press the button, either by using the 1984 legislation or by going to the traffic commissioner to try to prevent buses from using areas where as a result there is a danger. But to give to local authorities a power of compelling operators into bus stations, which would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment, is
418
something which we really do not feel would be right. I hope that I have said enough to show that we feel that the noble Lord has got a point. Where we disagree is over the method which the noble Lord is choosing in these amendments to meet that point.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble Lord the Minister, may I say that my reading of the first part of Amendment No. 21 is that if an authority asks the traffic commissioner he may determine conditions. Therefore, the question of compulsion does not appear to arise, unless there are certain conditions.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, although I can see the point of some of the arguments which the Minister has put—and if I thought that his perfect competition worked properly I would be very happy—I suspect that a great many problems will be arising. Certain operators will continue to do things on the cheap, particularly people who have very little capital and who, as suggested by the Secretary of State, spend their redundancy money. They will not be willing to use a bus station and will tend to use the street. In one experiment we saw that even the repairs were done in the street. I realise that a local authority can at some point compel operators to use a bus station or can put them off a particular pan of the road, but this all takes a considerable time.
As I said on an earlier amendment, when I spoke with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, this is part of the fair competition about which some of the very good and responsible operators were concerned. It was not just a question of the running; it was the whole question of unscrupulous operators using every dodge in the book. By the time they were caught up with, a great deal of money had been lost and some of the good operators could even have been put out of business. I am sorry—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I answer the question? I do not think that the rules of the House allow me to speak again, which is why I did not reply to the noble Lord, but may I ask a question of him? Am I correct in assuming that there is compulsion in these amendments, in the sense that, if the traffic commissioner agrees with the representations of the local authority, compulsion will then be on the operator? Will the noble Lord agree with my interpretation?
8.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, my interpretation is that if the local authority want to use traffic regulations and conditions and ask the traffic commissioner, he will need to say, "You cannot park in the street for certain services. You must use the bus station". That is what the noble Lord was asking about. So there would be that compulsion if this amendment were accepted, because it would be at the request of the local authority who would have to give proper reasons to the traffic commissioner. He would be a responsible person and would not do something frivolously. There will be occasions when good operators will use a bus station and its facilities because it is more convenient. There may be offices there and places for collecting money. That will cost

419
them money and they will have to pay a fee every time they use it, but there will be some people who decide at the beginning that they are not prepared to pay. I had a feeling that the Minister was giving the matter rather deep thought, but in order not to confuse him in any way I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 23:
[Printed earlier: col. 414.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 19.I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot then call Amendment No. 23A.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 23):
Amendment No. 23: Clause 7, page 8, line 1, leave out from ("service") to end of line 2 and insert ("means any local service to which section 6 of this Act applies").
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I cannot call
Amendment No. 23A.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 25:
[Printed earlier: col. 411.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 25):
Page 9, line 34, leave out subsection (15).
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 39, at end insert ("metropolitan district or non-metropolitan").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on the enactment of the Local Government Act 1985. It replaces metropolitan county councils with metropolitan district councils in the definition of "traffic authority", because the traffic regulation functions are to transfer from metropolitan county to district level on 1st April 1986 before this clause is planned to take effect. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 26A:
After Clause 9 insert the following new clause:
("Restoration of regulation.
—(1) A local authority may apply to the Secretary of State for an inquiry into services in their area.
(2) An application made under subsection (1) above may not be made less than two years from the commencement of this Act or more than four years from the commencement.
(3) The grounds upon which an application be made are that—

(a)the average annual level of subsidy paid to services under this Act is greater than the average annual subsidy paid by the local authority for road transport services in the two years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act; or

420

(b) having regard to the interests of the public the services operated since the commencement of this Act have not been as beneficial as compared with these operated in the area in the two years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act.

(4) Upon the receipt of an application the Secretary of State shall, unless he is of the opinion that it is frivolous or too trivial to warrant the holding of an inquiry in respect of it, refer the application to the traffic commissioner for the traffic area to which it principally relates.
(5) The traffic commissioners shall hold an inquiry in accordance with section 54 of the 1981 Act as substituted by this Act.
(6) If the traffic commissioner finds the grounds of the application to be substantially proved the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument disapply sections 6 to 9 of this Act in the traffic area or areas to which the inquiry principally related and the provisions of Schedule (Provisions relating to local services) to this Act shall have effect in that traffic area or in those traffic areas.
(7) In this section—
"local authority" has the meaning given to it by section 90 of this Act;
"service" has the meaning given to it by section 6 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, may I first say that I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for accepting the earlier amendments and I hope that I shall have equal luck with this one. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Sandford, who, when I could not attend, kindly moved an amendment with which he also was successful.
At Committee stage I moved an amendment to exempt from deregulation those areas which were spending so little on subsidy from the rate fund that greater efficiency could not possibly make it stretch far enough to replace cross-subsidy. In withdrawing the amendment, I said that I found the Minister very sympathetic and that I would try to bring forward a better amendment at a later stage, which is what I am trying to do now.
The Government's spending controls on the low spending areas, mostly district councils, who would need to increase rate expenditure to replace cross-subsidy, are not now severe. Even so, it is estimated by independent transport consultants that the extra rate spending in some areas, if we do not get some action taken, would still add 11 per cent. to the rate poundage. Though in debate the Government would not accept the point that there would be extra costs to the ratepayer in these districts, in the preamble to the Bill the Government admit that there are some areas where greater efficiency will not balance out lost cross-subsidy. They merely say in the opening remarks that these forces will balance out "over the country as a whole", which I suggest is not very satisfactory to the individual areas.
There is still a need to offer an escape clause to those areas where rate expenditure on subsidy may increase unreasonably to replace cross-subsidy. These amendments, I suggest, offer that escape clause. If, after the initial "settle down" period, an area has a worse service at the same external subsidy cost, or for the same subsidy has a lower service, then the Government's experiment will have failed the ratepayer or farepayer, or both. I suggest that local ratepayers, with the consent of their local authority, should then have a right of appeal. They should be allowed to make representations to the Secretary of State as to the worse service, or higher cost, caused by

421
the new Act. If they can convince the Secretary of State of their case, the current road service licence system will be reinstated in the area of the application. Clearly, if a case is marginal, a local authority would not promote it and the Secretary of State would not accept it. Therefore only cases of real detriment would be promoted.
I do not seek to define "service" or "cost of subsidy", for it is for the local authority making the appeal to show a definite detriment. In the current legislation "public interest" is not defined tightly and the traffic commissioners have coped with representations to them on what is and is not in the "public interest". I therefore hope that nobody will argue about the lack of definition of "service" or "cost of subsidy". My amendment contains safeguards, such as limiting applications to a specific time, not only to allow a settling in period but also to stop "out of time" applications when many other time trend factors will have significantly affected services and costs.
A problem could exist with services operating partly within and partly outside an "appeal" area. If such a service did not pick up or set down in the appeal area, it could operate to a deregulated "island" within the area, as in the Devon trial area. If it did pick up and set down it would require a road service licence for the part of the route in the area and a 1985 Act registration for the part of the route outside the area. The system could work if we can decide tonight to take some action along the lines I have suggested. It would not be something that has not happened before. In the Transport Act 1981 the wording "to the interests of the public" is included. As I suggest in my amendment, the traffic commissioners should be able to make these changes. I hope that this amendment will be satisfactory and will help both the ratepayer and local government in making their plans in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to welcome my noble friend Lady Vickers back to the House and I should like to say that I admire the ingenuity of my noble friend in amassing these lengthy amendments. They represent an interesting concept, a sort of trial area in reverse, although instead of trying out something new and challenging it would, I am afraid, be trying out something which is old and threadbare. There is a fundamental misconception, if I may say so, that anything which goes wrong with bus services from now on will be the fault of this Bill and that unless services improve dramatically, which we hope they will, we should be better off with the devil we know.
Noble Lords opposite smile. Let us not be deceived in this matter. It is three months since we talked about buses in any general terms. Let me remind your Lordships of the regime which the amendment of my noble friend Lady Vickers would seek to reimpose. It is the one which has been responsible for the slow but steady erosion of bus services for the past quarter of a century and the not so slow or steady rise in subsidies over the past 15 years or so, not to mention the appalling increases in fares at 30 per cent. more than the rate of inflation over the past 10 years which have hit many people so that they have in fact deserted buses. My noble friend calls for an inquiry which could take place after deregulation so that the area could
422
return to regulation again. Presumably the questions being asked in the inquiry would be: "Have services deteriorated more rapidly in the past two years than they did in the two years before deregulation? Have subsidies gone up faster than before?" If the answer to those questions was yes, I suggest that the inquiry ought then to ask, "Would it have been am better under road service licensing? Would the restoration of road service licensing bring about any improvements?" But the amendments do not provide for those sorts of questions. I am bound to say that, if we thought that a return to road service licensing would create an improvement where there might be problems, I do not think that we should have been bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House.
There is a further problem with regard to the amendments. Suppose that in a particular local authority area both the council and the major operator were fundamentally opposed to the principles of the Bill, I suggest that they could deliberately run down services and run up subsidies in order to bring about an inquiry in the hope of restoring licensing. In view of some of the irrational and ill-informed propaganda about the Bill, I do not think that that suggestion is entirely far-fetched. On a more sober note, as long as the possiblity remains of a return to the old dispensation, the temptation will always be there not to adjust to the reality of the bus market and to produce the services the public want at a price they can afford.
My noble friend will forgive me if I cannot resist adding that one of the technical defects of the amendments is that there is no provision at all to terminate the period of regulation if the restoration of road service licensing did not have beneficial effects. I am sorry, because it gave us great pleasure to accept amendments from my noble friend when she was unavoidably absent from the House and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, moved amendments on her behalf. I would wish that I was accepting the amendments but, for the reasons I have given, I regret to say that I cannot.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the only temperate thing about that response was the tone of voice. Everything else was so extreme that I could hardly believe that I was hearing it from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. The suggestion that authorities would actually make bus services worse and increase the fares in order to provoke a public inquiry is so extreme that it is an insult to those who are responsible to the public in the areas they serve and are capable of being replaced by the public if they fail to provide an adequate service. The same cannot be said of some operators or indeed of the traffic commissioners—I am not attacking the traffic commissioners—who are not themselves responsible to the areas they serve.
The noble Lord in his reply seems to think that all the arguments are so firmly on one side that even the possibility of failure in a single area, which is what the noble Baroness was envisaging, is so completely out of court that it cannot be considered and there is no opportunity to go back.

423
8.30 p.m.
During the Committee stage of this Bill none of us who expressed doubt, concern or opposition to any of the aspects of this Bill ever said that the effects of the Bill would be universal all over the country and that there was no possibility that in some parts of the country liberalisation and privatisation might not be justified. We never said that. We have always recognised that there is a wide variety among the transport needs of different parts of the country and in the kind of organisation required to meet those needs. That is evidenced by some of the heartfelt concerns expressed by noble Lords with particular links with rural areas, where the argument is quite different from that used in the metropolitan areas and large conurbations.
However, the Government are so convinced about the lightness of their theoretical and ideological attitude that they are not even prepared to consider that where the application—and it may not be a trivial application; the amendment is quite clear on that point—shows that the objectives of the Bill have not been achieved in a particular area, there might not be a public inquiry which could open up the possibility of returning to an arrangement which, if the inquiry proves it so, has shown itself to be better than its replacement. It seems to me that in this case it is the Government who are being unitary and ideological and who are refusing to respond to the possibility that local opinion might be best. For the noble Lord the Minister to trot out the tired old arguments about the decline of the bus services over the past 15 to 20 years as if the increase in car ownership has had no influence on bus services in Britain, as it has in all other countries in the western world, really is not good enough.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord this question. How is it that when 40 per cent. of the households of this country, as I understand it, still do not own a car, nonetheless the use of buses has fallen dramatically while fares and subsidies have escalated?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, 40 per cent. of individuals and not 40 per cent. of households are without access to a car. Those who now have access to cars did in the past provide the most profitable market for bus services. Those who do not have access to cars but who need transport at off-peak times and in the evenings—particularly housewives in one-car families where the wage-earner takes the car to work—are indeed a market, but they represent an incomplete market when compared with the complete market that existed before. Quite apart from the noble Lord's understandable mistake concerning the percentage of car ownership, his question does not support his argument.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, one point that puzzles me about this amendment and about the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is that it is being argued that if one does not like a particular piece of legislation one can introduce into it a clause which will enable that legislation to be reversed quite easily.
424
This is surely a new practice and one which we have not been invited to consider before in other legislation, from wherever it has come and from whichever party.
Normally, we pass legislation which reflects views arrived at after careful thought. In this case the bus industry has been dramatically dying on its feet for the past 10 or 15 years or more, and so something new must be done. There must be change. Naturally, some people are offended, but to put into the Bill that such change can be reversed is questionable. We normally say, "Here is our idea of how matters should be handled in future in order to improve the situation for the ordinary customer". That is what this legislation is all about. In the event that it does not work, then in due course further legislation can be passed by the Government of the day to make the changes shown to be necessary. But we do not usually build into a Bill the seeds of its own destruction, which seems to me to be what my noble friend is seeking to do. My noble friend probably does not mean to do that, but that is what this clause would in effect achieve.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, the Transport Act 1981 used the wording "in the interests of the public", and so such a provision is not particular to this amendment. However, as I do not seem to have received much support, I had better withdraw my amendment and see whether I can devise an even better one for next time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Immediate hiring of taxis at separate fares]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 43, after ("fares") insert—
("() the measures to be taken to enforce such conditions and regulations applicable to the operation of taxis under the scheme with regard to their safety and the safe conduct and carriage of members of the public;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is by way of a probing amendment, and it deals with taxis. The Bill now contains three main promises concerning taxis. They are that the hackney carriage licence will become compulsory; that hackney carriages can be used as shared taxis provided that a scheme is drawn up; and that hackney carriages can be used as buses provided that a restricted licence is obtained from the traffic commissioner and the service is registered.
The Minister may be able to help me with a particular point concerning shared taxis. Clause 10(4) introduces the condition for a licensing authority making a scheme for shared taxis:
"if the holders of at least ten per cent. of the current taxi licences issued by the authority request the authority in writing to do so".
Will that provision apply if a single operator holds 10 per cent. of the licences? That would be giving a great deal of power to an individual. In many towns and cities a single operator may hold a fairly large number of licences. He may hold up to 20 per cent. of the available licences and would thus be able to exercise that provision if he alone wished to so do. One would therefore have just one person making such a decision.
Since the beginning of this Bill, and even before its introduction, Ministers have been telling us that there

425
will be further legislation to sort out taxi legislation, which we all agree is in a bit of a mess. We have been told that new regulations or legislation will be introduced. We all remember the interesting debate we had earlier at the Committee stage, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, discussed the 1847 Act and other noble Lords made various points about the antiquated nature of taxi licensing law.
Under this amendment, district councils who licence taxis would have to make arrangements for the vehicles to be tested as at present, but beyond that the present rules are very limited. Different councils are able to apply different standards. In some cases, a distinctive vehicle is insisted upon. In others, the licensing authority insists upon a distinctive livery. Still other authorities allow any kind of car to be used and not even a distinctive number is required; a sign in the window or a plate on the rear of the vehicle may be all that is necessary.
It may be a cause for concern that where vehicles are to be used as shared taxis or buses there is no easily identifiable livery, plate or mark to distinguish such vehicles. The Bill refers to "the display of any document, plate, mark or sign" but this relates to the authorised stopping places, not to the taxis themselves or to a taxi standing at such a place.
Two questions. First, does "mark" or "sign" apply to the actual taxi? If so, can it be extended to include a distinctive livery? In other words, if taxis are going to be used as shared taxis, will they need to have a distinctive livery, not the same all over the country but for a particular area?
Under the proposals of the Bill, a taxi operating as a bus is subject to enforcement by traffic commissioners just as is any PS vehicle, but a taxi operating as a shared car is not, and there is no provision to ensure that the district council carries out any enforcement. Many district councils do actually take a great deal of care, but some do not, with the result that licensing certainly is open to abuse. In the absence of an enforcement officer there are always the police, but they have limited resources and this is not a job they particularly like doing; I do know that.
This amendment seeks to ensure that where a scheme for shared cars is introduced, part of that scheme should include arrangements for enforcement of the conditions that I tried to describe earlier. There are two reasons for this. One is that cars can cross district boundaries. There can be quite different attitudes over one boundary as opposed to another. There can be a great deal of discrepancy and a great deal of abuse. Some form of inspection and control is essential for the sake of protecting the public. This is intended as a probing amendment and I hope also that it is one that the House will find helpful. I hope the noble Earl the Minister will be able to reassure the House—
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, enlighten us on one important point of this amendment? The noble Lord mentioned that normally the police enforce the law, but does he have it in mind that there should be established, if his amendment were to be accepted, some different kind of law enforcement authority other than the police?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, in terms of taxi inspection, certainly in London, it is not the police who do the vehicle inspection. I believe that has changed, has it not? I think the Public Carriage Office do it now, not the police. I am open to correction, but I understood that this was not something done by the police themselves; there were special inspectors.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in London the Commissioner of Police is responsible for enforcement of the taxi regulations.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I would need to take advice on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as to who would do the inspection. I would have thought there would be—I think the noble Lord the Minister has an answer now as to who does the inspection in other places, but there would be a local authority. I am sorry; I need to take that back and look at it. I cannot give an answer now.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the House to do something which perhaps is not in order but which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will not mind? It refers to the next clause of the Bill. I thought it might be a useful opportunity for the Minister to insert into the record correspondence we have had arising out of a discussion which took place on the Motion that Clause 11 stand part. Noble Lords will remember that in Committee I raised the question of the contract position of people hiring shared cabs. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will forgive me, but he has raised the question of shared cabs and I think that this is probably the only appropriate moment when I can introduce this point.
The difficulty arises if someone hires a shared cab by telephone and when the cab comes to the door he finds that there are already within the cab people who are in some way offensive; either drunk or objectionable in some other way. What is the contractual position of the person having hired the cab if he then refuses to get into it? The noble Earl the Minister—and I congratulate him on his promotion; this is the first opportunity I have had to do so—wrote me a long letter in which he explained the position very clearly in relation to what happens already under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the London Hackney Carriages Act 1853, which gives the driver the statutory right with reasonable excuse to refuse to carry a passenger. He rightly says this matter will have to be tested by the courts in relation to the present Bill.
Now that, on the face of it, answered my question; in other words, he concluded that if a driver may reasonably refuse to carry someone who is offensive, then a passenger can reasonably refuse to get into a cab occupied by someone who is offensive, so the contractual position would be that the person was not bound by the contract. However, I note from the press that there has been a test case in which a taxi driver was fined £50 for refusing to allow someone to smoke a pipe in his cab. It seems to me to put the whole thing back into question again. I apologise to the House for raising the matter in this way but there is no other way in which I can touch on this. Perhaps the noble Earl

427
the Minister might like to take the opportunity of saying something on this at the moment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have covered a fair amount of ground by this one amendment, and we have been liberal in our interpretation of the law. But I am happy to try and help wherever I can. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is so sceptical of the value of taxi-sharing and a bit fearful of its consequences. Taxi-sharing has been tried elsewhere in the world—for instance in many Australian cities—and it works. We are convinced that it can work in this country and that it can mean more business for the taxi trade and a better deal for the passenger.
When this Bill comes into force it will be for the taxi licensing authority and the local taxi trade to make use of it as best suits their own areas. The Government will help and advise, and may use the regulation-making power to achieve a measure of national uniformity in things like signs which the noble Lord mentioned, but will not impose anything on the district councils. So when it comes to livery, we will not be imposing anything on them. It will be up to adjacent district councils, if that is what they want to do, to put their heads together and sort something out for themselves. We will be ready to help and advise where necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised the question on Clause 10(4), and the answer is yes. It is the number of licences that matters. If one person has more than 10 per cent., he will be in a strong position.
My noble friend Lord Renton raised the question of the police inspecting vehicles. I have to tell him that both the police and the officials authorised by the district councils are empowered by Section 68 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to inspect taxis and suspend licences. Of course, as my noble friend will be aware to a greater extent than I, the cost of the licence charged by the local authority can be spent on enforcement by their own enforcement officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, with whom I am in correspondence, raised an interesting point. I just wonder if I might ask him for his agreement to my putting a copy of the letter in the Library. It ought to be there, as it clearly sets out the present position, and I will arrange for that to be done if it has not been done already.
I ought to say that I believe the judge is right, even though I am not a smoker myself, in the case he mentioned. Until smoking is banned—and from previous debates in the summer I know that the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, Lord Ennals, would like that situation to come about—such behaviour would open a door that would be unpopular, and unscrupulous use could be made of situations if taxi drivers were able to do that.
With regard to vehicle safety, which was again mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I have already touched on this subject. We covered this at great length in Committee. We shall be dealing with it, I know, in amendments which follow and we shall be going into it in some detail.
428
Regarding the controls over taxis, it does not matter whether or not it is a shared taxi, it will be subject to the same quality controls. I can assure the noble Lord that as soon as the Bill is passed we shall send an appropriate circular to all local authorities reminding them of their responsibilities and the actions that they can take. In reading the Committee stage again it is seen that local authorities have very wide powers.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and that I have covered all the points raised by noble Lords.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this was a probing amendment and the Minister has covered most of the points raised. I should like to ask whether the Minister knows, or can find out when there will be new legislation and what steps will be taken. I know he cannot reply now but it would be interesting to know when a statement can be made on when a formal examination of existing licensing laws for taxis will be started and what legislation will be likely to come out of it.
I am also very disappointed—I hope that the Minister will also look at this—about the great power given to an individual who has more than 10 per cent. of licences. He can almost dictate to the other 90 per cent. as to whether there should be a shared system. I should add that I am not against shared taxis. I merely think that if it works it will take a long time for people to get used to the idea. There are obvious dangers with taxis or any vehicle on the road which is for hire, as any taxi driver will tell you. I am certainly not against anything that will get people about more cheaply and more conveniently than at present. I certainly agree with that. Following the assurances and explanations given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Use of taxis in providing local services]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 28:
[Printed earlier: col. 414.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 19.1 beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to. Following is the text of the amendment (No. 28):
Clause 12, page 14, line 42, at end insert—
("(5A) In subsection (5)(b) above "local service" does not include an excursion or tour.").
Clause 15 [Extension of taxi licensing in England and Wales]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 31:
Page 17, line 23, after ("carriages") insert ("and of the Town Police Clauses Act 1889").
Page 17, line 23, after ("incorporated") insert ("in each case").
Page 17, line 35, at end insert—
("(3) So much of any local Act as enables a district council to bring to an end the application of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) above to the whole or any part of their area shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31. These are three

429
essential technical amendments to ensure the proper implementation of the extension of taxi licensing throughout England and Wales. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 have been moved en bloc.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, can the noble Earl help me and tell me whether I have misread this? Does Clause 15, as it is proposed to be amended, read:
"Where, immediately before the commencement of this section, the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages and of the Town Police Clauses Act 1889 (as incorporated in each case in the Public Health Act 1875)"
and so on? At first sight it is rather odd to find a later Act incorporated in an earlier Act. It makes quite good sense to say that the 1847 Act is incorporated in the 1875 Act, as indeed it is, but there must be something very peculiar in the 1875 Act that makes it capable of incorporating an Act that was passed some 14 years later. If the noble Earl can tell me what it is I shall be very grateful.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. At first sight it looks odd and I agree with the noble and learned Lord; but it was the way in which the Town Police Clauses Act was drafted. If the noble and learned Lord will bear with me and wait until we reach his amendments later—Amendments Nos. 34 and 36—I can go into this matter in some detail because I have a lengthy speaking note on it. If the noble and learned Lord can wait until then, but is still not satisfied thereafter, perhaps we can go into the matter further at a later stage.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I shall do my best to be patient.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Taxis in England and Wales: control of numbers and application to taxi code to eight-seaters]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 17, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(" (2) After section 37 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Numbers of hackney carriages. "
37A. The grant of a licence shall be refused by a district council if they are satisfied that the needs of the district as a whole are already being adequately met by those who already hold licences." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 33A and 34A, and Amendment No. 35 in the names of the Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham, Earl Attlee and myself.
Amendment No. 33A: Page 17, line 42, leave out ("shall not") and insert ("may").
Amendment No. 34A: Page 18, line 1, leave out from ("them") to end of line 7 and insert ("if, but only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages within the prescribed distance which is unmet.").
Amendment No. 35: Page 18, line 7, at end insert—
("; or that they are satisfied that there is already a sufficient number of hackney carriages to satisfy the needs of their area.").
Your Lordships will remember that in Committee both the form and substance of Clause 16 were strongly criticised by both sides of your Lordships' House, and indeed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning, and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, both of whom are here this evening. The criticism arose on an amendment moved by the noble Earl. Lord Winchilsea which was in the same terms as Amendment No. 35 on the Marshalled List and on my Motion to leave out Clause 16.
At the conclusion of the discussion in Committee on these matters my noble friend Lord Trefgarne gave an undertaking to reconsider the clause, or at any rate that the Government would reconsider the clause, and he offered to discuss it with me. I am glad to say that during the Recess the Government have gracefully accepted the criticisms both of form and of substance. We shall of course deal later with the form and drafting on other amendments; but Amendment No. 33, and the others that I suggest should be taken with it, are concerned with the substance or policy of the matter.
It is an attempt to overcome the practical problems which were mentioned in Committee, especially the problem of so many licences being granted by one district council. There would be chaos and it would not be feasible to enforce the law relating to standards. Existing taxi operators—and, indeed, those coming in—would find a chaotic situation which amounted to unfair competition.
I should mention that in August the representatives of the National Taxicab Association saw me. and I should also disclose that Amendment No. 33 expresses their view and mine as to how the law could be, and we thought should be, amended. However, after discussion of that amendment and of Clause 16 generally last Wednesday week with my honourable friend Mr. David Mitchell, MP, Under-Secretary of State for Transport, and with my noble friend Lord Caithness—whom I should like to congratulate on his appointment as Under-Secretary of State for Transport, jointly—the day after the Government tabled Amendments Nos. 33A and 34A which together have nearly the same effect as Amendment No. 33. I also mention, because I think it is worth mentioning, that both my amendment and those of the Government avoid the unsatisfactory formula based upon the Scottish law relating to the licensing of taxi cabs, as well as dealing with the practical problems which I have already mentioned.
I am grateful to my honourable friend Mr. Mitchell and to my noble friend Lord Caithness for their open-minded approach, and in due course I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment and shall gladly support the two Government amendments. As to Amendment No. 35, the amendment of the noble Earl. Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, of course it will be for him to decide what to do with it when the time comes. Meanwhile, I beg formally to move the amendment.
9 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I think the noble Lord wishes to move Amendment No. 33. The noble Lord has said that he would not wish to move Amendment No. 32.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not move Amendment No. 32. I have just moved Amendment No. 33 as a convenient peg on which to hang a discussion of the other amendments to which I referred.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I think it may be appropriate at this stage to announce my intention not to press my own amendment in view of what has already taken place. I should also like to mention one or two matters which I feel ought to have an airing, the most important of which is the current situation in Liverpool, where deregulation has in fact already taken place in all but name and where the number of licensed taxis has risen from just over 400 to now just over 1,400. This has caused the Chief Constable of Merseyside a great deal of unhappiness and in his annual report he confirms the situation but is not really able to do anything about it. The situation in Liverpool is really quite dire—not just because of the taxis, as we all know, but taxis constitute some part of the total situation—and the public are at great risk.
I spent two days in Liverpool and was driven around by the Liverpool Taxi Owners Association. I observed taxis in the most deplorable state of maintenance that I have seen anywhere in this country, which is simply because the great increase in taxis has meant that nobody there can make a decent living, and the last thing they have is money to spare for maintenance of their vehicles. I saw the most incredible things happening. There were taxis stopping right across street intersections to pick up fares and stopping right on pedestrain crossings because they knew that if they obeyed the law and moved on a few yards someone else with an empty cab would nip in behind and collect the fare. Just a little while ago I heard someone—I am afraid I cannot remember who it was—raising the question of inspection of taxicabs for adequate safety standards. I know that in Liverpool the City maintains three inspection vans and they are supposed to inspect all 1,400 cabs. This is simply impossible for them to do, so hardly anything is done, which is one of the reasons why they are in such an appalling state.
However, I should very much like to thank the Government for their reconsideration and in particular for their very helpful Amendments Nos. 33A and 34A. I think that these will go a very great way toward easing the problems which the taxi industry foresaw were looming. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for all his co-operation and his valued and influential support and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
There is one other question that I should like to raise, which arises from the fact that I have heard—and perhaps the Government can confirm it—that they intend to introduce entirely separate legislation governing the taxi and hire car industry. If that is so, does the House have any idea when we can expect this? Moreover, if it is so, will it mean in fact
432
that everything relating to taxis in the present Transport Bill will be declared null and void when the new legislation is introduced? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes", then may I humbly suggest that we have all been wasting our time on the taxi issue, because it seems sensible to me to keep the present status quo and turn our attention to the industry as a whole in separate legislation, if indeed this is to be forthcoming?
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I speak to this group of amendments as to the substance of them? The form comes later. They are deplorable in their drafting, but that comes in the next stage. On this substance of the matter, we had that case from Liverpool in my court in 1972 and it is the only case there is on this Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847. That Act of 1847 stated that the commissioners shall licence such number of hackney carriages—that is taxicabs—as they think fit. So all the corporation or the commissioners could do was to fix the number. In 1971 the Liverpool Corporation had fixed 300 as the number of taxis of Liverpool and then, if you please, they proposed to increase that number to 350 the next year and 400 the next. But the corporation had promised the Liverpool taxi operators that they would be consulted before there was an increase. It did not consult them, and in the Court of Appeal we held that its increase was bad because it had not consulted the taxi operators first.
The taxi operators won that stage, but the corporation got round that. It went through all the necessary procedures and increased the number of cabs; instead of 300 there were 1,400 or 1,500. The whole market was swamped. There were far too many taxis. The drivers could not earn a living, and they were falling over one another and congesting the streets. That case and that operation level showed that the law was all wrong. The corporation should not be left to decide the numbers: either it will have too few taxis and the public will lose out (they will not get a taxi when they want one) or the numbers will be set too high, the market will be swamped and the taxi drivers will not earn a living. It is imperative that the law should be amended.
I agree with the substance of the amendments. Let a properly qualified driver, with a proper cab, be entitled to his licence, but do not let the market be swamped. If I may say so, I prefer the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton, Amendment No. 33:
"The grant of a licence shall be refused by a district council if they are satisfied that the needs of the district as a whole are already being adequately met by those who already hold licences".
That is very good. I should like to see that provision in the Bill; but the Government have amended that and we have another amendment, Amendment No. 34A, which I do not like a bit. A licence may be refused:
"if, but only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages within the prescribed distance which is unmet".
The words "prescribed distance" will give rise to awful trouble.
There is this very good advice given by the draftsman, of which we have copies. What does the phrase "within the prescribed distance" mean? The definition in Section 128 of the Act says that it is

433
within the distance prescribed by regulation, but the draftsman does not think that. Does it or does it not mean within the prescribed distance under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, which is incorporated? He says that Lord Renton is wrong in saying one should go to the definition clause, and states:
"In fact, 'prescribed' in the context of the new section derives its meaning from the definitions"—
this is awfully technical—
"applying to terms used in the Act into which it is being inserted. The expression 'within the prescribed distance' in the 1847 Act is defined in section 171 of the Public Health Act 1875".
That means within the urban district.
If these words, "within the prescribed distance", are not cleared up, we shall have an awful lot of trouble. There is no clear meaning. That is one reason—and it is just on interpretation—why I do not like the Government amendment. I much prefer the amendment of my noble friend, Amendment No. 33. I think that the words "within the prescribed distance" will give an awful lot of trouble. The Government ought to take back Amendment No. 34A to revise it; otherwise, just keep Amendment No. 33.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is "unmet" a proper English word? Would not better wording be "which is not met"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have had a useful discussion on taxis, as I knew we should. If I may briefly deal with the amendment before us, Amendment No. 33, in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton, it would restrict a council's discretion to grant licences rather than limiting its power to refuse to grant them. It would be more restricting than the present position, giving the established taxi trade the right of appeal against the granting of licences even in those areas where the district council does not at present exercise strict limitation. The effect of the amendment would be to establish more firmly the right of a district council to limit taxi numbers by fettering its discretion to do otherwise. I cannot believe that that really is the will of the House.
Let me give the example of a taxi driver I know who has been waiting for eight years to get his licence. He drives for somebody else who controls a lot of licences in the area. When I spoke to him he said, "I cannot wait for your Bill to come in because I shall be able to have my own cab and that is what I want. I want to get away from having to hire a cab from somebody who controls it". There is the monopoly. This is no small business that will be taken apart. We are concentrating on a few power barons in the taxi trade who are a very good lobby. Indeed they are: they have been a lobby since the 17th century, and a very effective one. But let us now think of the people who would like to own a cab and be respectable taxi drivers. I think that my noble friend's amendment is too restrictive.
I should like to turn now to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, which is the same as that we discussed in Committee. The difficulty with this amendment is that it refers to the needs of an area. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, chided the Government about their wording, I believe that this wording is even more difficult for the courts to understand. On that basis, the
434
Government, I consider, have come forward with the right proposition.
Before going on to that, I should like to take a little time to explain the Liverpool situation. Much has been said about Liverpool. It is correct that since 1982 the number of taxis has increased by 541. Let us not forget that in the same period—I am sorry; I mean since 1980 to the present day—there has been a reduction in hire cars of 662. This confirms what we have said all along. Where there is strict taxi control one has a lot of hire cars. When you liberalise the taxis the number of hire cars reduces. Everyone notices a "Taxi" sign on top of a car or on the front or back of it. They do not notice hire cars. It is fair to say that the congestion in Liverpool has not become worse. The number of cars doing this trade is about the same. The fact is that there are more vehicles displaying "Taxi" signs and fewer hire cars.
9.15 p.m.
Where a problem does exist in Liverpool is in the fact that there are only 314 rank spaces. The number has not been increased. But the authorities have the power to increase the number of spaces. This can be done at no extra cost because the cost can be charged to the licences. It is for the authority to put its house in order. On the quality side, I can say that there are seven enforcement officers in Liverpool with one enforcement officer for every 200 cabs. That is a higher number than in London. Liverpool must get its act together. It has the powers under existing legislation. The number of cars on the street has not increased. It is time that Liverpool implemented the powers that it has. We shall be reminding Liverpool of these powers in a circular when the Bill is passed.
Let me turn briefly now to the Government amendments. The Government accept that the criteria in the Bill are not as clear as they should be. In the light of the very helpful discussions with my noble friend Lord Renton, we have come forward with Amendments Nos. 33A and 34A. I should like to thank my noble friend very much for coming to see my honourable friend David Mitchell and myself. This has proved very useful. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, for accepting that what we have tried to do is meet the principle behind the present criteria: that, given that district councils are responsible for controlling the number of taxis, this should be done in such a way as to match supply with demand. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that by addressing this matter directly we have produced clear provision that will be readily comprehensible to the district councils and to the courts.
Despite what the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, has said, I should like to examine the point he has made. As he knows, I am not a lawyer or a judge and would not remotely pretend that I am. I should like to examine the points he has made in some detail. If there is any quiet period tomorrow, I should like to do it then. We shall be issuing a circular to local authorities on the implementation of this provision. I assure noble Lords that we shall set out in the circular the policy underlying this clause. I shall deal with that policy on the next amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton, which is to leave out Clause 16.

435
One matter slightly perturbs me. It should not do so because we are quite accustomed to the vagaries of the Liberal Party. However, on the one hand we have the noble Earl saying "Restrict taxis. Keep it all tight." Yet I recall some remarks made a mere three years ago by his noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie. I hope that the whole House agrees with me that we send our deepest sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. It is very sad that he is not here. We wish him well. We are terribly sorry to hear the tragic news. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is a different Liberal to the noble Earl. He is a Liberal in the true sense of the word. When we were dealing with the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill—we considered Commons amendments on 19th October 1982—it was in the Commons that we put on the restriction when we really wanted a more competitive situation among taxis. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said at col. 22:
"My Lords, I regret Amendment No. 30 because the matter could have been left to competition".
My Lords, we have to accept that everybody changes their mind, and here is the Liberal Party with the heavy hand of the SDP around their necks. But, seriously, I think we have made a sensible attempt to get it right this time, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for saying that he will withdraw this amendment. I look forward to moving the Government amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before I withdraw my amendment I understand that it would be in order for me to make one or two brief comments. The first is to
436
explain to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, why I agreed to support the Government amendments and not to press my own. One reason is that I am a fairly realistic parliamentarian, and I felt that although I had a very good chance of winning a Division if there had been just my amendment on the Marshalled List opposed by the Government, if I may put it very bluntly I did not have a cat in hell's chance of doing so once the Government amendments had been tabled. Having said that, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that my amendment is, for various technical reasons, to be preferred, and I am sorry to find myself in this position, though at the same time grateful to the Government. It is a paradox which I accept. I should like to acknowledge the kindness of the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea.
I must make one correction, and I hope that those who are concerned will forgive me. I did not give the correct description to the representatives of this important association who came to see me. They are the National Federation of Taxicab Associations, and for the sake of the record I should like to put that right. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 33.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 33A:
[Printed earlier: col. 429.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 33A):
Page 17, line 42, leave out ("shall not") and insert ("may").
9.24 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 17, line 42, leave out ("a district council") and insert ("the commissioners")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment but may be an important one. It turns on the rule that one only changes terminology in a section, or two linked sections, or even in a whole statute, if one intends to indicate, and particularly to signal to the court, that something different is intended to be referred to. It may be that something different is intended and, if so, the noble Earl will explain that. But it is a matter that requires explanation.
My noble and learned friend Lord Denning has already referred to Section 37 of the 1847 Act, which is amended in subsection (1) of Clause 16. As he indicated, Section 37 gives commissioners—and I emphasise that word—power to licence such number of hackney carriages or hackney coaches (I am speaking from memory) as they think fit. All sub-section (1) does is to remove the words "such number of" and "as they think fit". But it is still commissioners who do the licensing. However, when we come to the linked Section 37A inserted by subsection (2) we no longer have the word "commissioners": we have the words "a district council".
My noble and learned friend Lord Denning referred to the inaccessibility of the 1847 Act when your Lordships were discussing this matter in Committee. I have only been able to find it in two places. One is in the loose-leaf Statutes in Force, which we discussed earlier and which has no commentary, and the other is in Halsbury's Statutes of England, which has a commentary. In Halsbury the note is that commissioners extend beyond district councils to a number of other local authorities, though not as widely as they did when they were first defined in 1847.
Unfortunately that volume of Halsbury is dated 1971, and of course there has been considerable and controversial change in local government since then. Therefore, it may be that the district council is now the only licensing commissioner. However, even if that were so, there would be no reason to change the terminology, because they might not always be. In any case, there is no advantage in changing the terminology and every disadvantage, as I have indicated, because it suggests that something different is meant, and, in the case that I have postulated, the same thing is meant.
If, however, there are other licensing commissioners besides district councils, what this change of terminology would indicate is that, of all those commissioners who license, only district councils are referred to in the new Section 37A. Therefore, one way or another, it looks as though an inconvenient drafting course has been taken, and I accordingly beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I say a word on this drafting? This Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is not an ordinary statute as we know it. It is simply a series of
438
model clauses to be incorporated in a later Act. That 1847 Act did not apply to anything as it stood. It simply said, "These are model clauses which can be incorporated in later Acts", and they were not incorporated until 1875. Those Town Police Clauses Act sections were incorporated in the Public Health Act 1875 at Section 171. That is the first time they became law.
They became law in the sense that you wrote in that the commissioners "shall do this and that". There you are, you have that written into the 1875 Act, and going on through whenever the provision was incorporated. If you incorporate it here, or bring it in, you have simply got the words "the commissioners". Well you must have something to explain to the people who are going to read that who the commissioners are. Perhaps you can trace it through all the statutes. I cannot and I have tried. After the local government reorganisation in 1971–72, we had the new district councils which took over from the rural districts and the urban districts and all that, but they are the new district councils. You have to find something in this train of statutes to show how the commissioners, as they were in 1847 and as they were afterwards, changed into a different set of people, the district councils. Therefore something ought to be done about it. This incorporation is a matter of drafting.
I agree with my noble and learned friend. Let us keep to the wording of the 1847 Act which we are using and say that it shall be applied, subject to modification. It will give a lot of trouble but that is the logical way of doing it, if one is to incorporate the i 847 Act.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has raised a detailed question of legal drafting. As I understand him, he is questioning whether a textual amendment to an Act should be couched in the terms of the Act being amended—even if, as in this case, they are archiac—or whether the modern interpretations should be used. I think there can be little doubt that the modern interpretation of "the commissioners" is "a district council". The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 modifies the way in which the 1847 Act is applied and is framed throughout in terms of "district councils". That Act would simply not work if the council were not "the commissioners" for the purpose of the 1847 Act. To refer now to the commissioners in an amendment made in 1985 would, I am advised, cause doubt as to whether we really did wish to refer to district councils—if we had meant that why did we not say so—and send them round the tortuous route of the Public Health Act 1875 and the Local Government Act 1972 to establish that that was in fact what we meant.
As to a precedent for using modern terminology when textually amending an old Act, I am directed to the Nursing Homes Registrations (Scotland) Act 1938 which conferred functions on "the department" which now means "the Secretary of State". This Act, as noble Lords will know, was amended in the Health Services Act 1980, to introduce a new section 3A, in an

439
amendment which referred directly to "the Secretary of State" rather than repeating the archiac reference to "the department". I would put it to noble Lords that that really is quite a good direct parallel.
The more we discuss this the more I am convinced that a full review of the taxi and car hire legislation is desirable and, hopefully, that we should get this Bill quickly on the statute book without further delay so that we can get on with that next bite of the cherry. I hope that with that explanation the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not think there will be any difference of opinion among your Lordships that we need a new code, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this amendment. The noble Earl justifies a most misleading change of terminology by saying that what he is doing is substituting modern terminology for antique terminology. But that disregards entirely that he has, in effect, adopted the antique terminology of "commissioners" in subsection (1) which is left intact except for the removal of "such number of and "as they shall think fit". Subsection (1) adopts Section 37 of the 1847 Act which uses the word "commissioners". The noble Earl must be consistent about this. If he is to be modern he must also amend Section 37 of the 1847 Act. As it is, he leaves your Lordships with the worst of both worlds, antique terminology, as he puts it, invoked in subsection (1) and a misleading change to different terminology in the new Clause 37A in subsection (2). However, as the noble Earl has apparently convinced himself that that is right, I see no point at this hour in pressing the amendment and I beg to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 34A:
[Printed earlier: col. 429.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 34A):
Page 18, line 1, leave out from ("them") to end of line and insert ("if, but only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages within the prescribed distance which is unmet.").
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, Amendment No. 36. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 37.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 18, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment proposes to leave out a section which was the subject of universal execration when your
440
Lordships discussed it in Committee. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, made a most entertaining speech about it, holding it up justifiably to ridicule, and today my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has referred to it in trenchant terms. This Bill runs to over 170 pages and your Lordships at this stage are asked to add considerably to it. It includes in that subsection (3) a provision which everybody has found quite baffling. If your Lordships can remove it as unnecessary, as in my respectful submission you can, that is obviously a course that we should adopt.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and to the noble Earl for having corresponded with me about this, and in particular for sending me an extract from the draftsman's letter about it.
The draftsman's problem was this: that, as my noble and learned friend said a moment ago, the 1847 Act is really only a set of standard clauses to be incorporated in or adopted by some later statute. That style of legislation was very popular at the beginning of the last century: there was a Railways Clauses Act, a Land Clauses Act, a Companies Clauses Act, and the Town Police Clauses Act. As my noble and learned friend said, that was adopted in 1875 in the Public Health Act, which has been extended by other statutes.
However, what worried the draftsman obviously and explicitly was this. He has amended the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 in subsection (1) and subsection (2) and he is anxious that those amendments shall apply not only to references to the 1847 Act in statutes that are passed in the future but also in statutes that have already been passed. That was the problem as he saw it; although it does not really exist at all because the matter is taken care of entirely by the section in the Interpretation Act which he refers to at the outset of this subsection. I will read to your Lordships that subsection of Section 20:
"Where an Act refers to an enactment, the reference, unless the contrary intention appears, is a reference to that enactment as amended, and includes a reference thereto as extended or applied, by or under any other enactment, including any other provision of that Act".
We can jettison most of that because no contrary indication appears at all, so that saving proviso can go. And the words "and includes" are not words of restriction; they are words of extension. So the only question is: was there a reference? It is perhaps significant that in summarising, at the beginning of subsection (3) on page 18, the draftsman has failed to include the word "reference". What he has been preoccupied with is "extended or applied". If "reference" is the key word—and I venture to suggest that it is—the only question is: did the 1875 Act make reference to the 1847 Act? The answer, of course, is "Yes, it did", and that concludes the matter.
Now, may I read the beginning of that subsection again? It says that where an Act (1875) refers to an enactment (1847), the reference is a reference to that enactment (1847) as amended, as amended in 1985. That is the beginning and the end of the matter. The words are perfectly plain, and there is absolutely no reason to indulge in the convolutions of subsection (3) and every reason to leave the matter to the plain meaning of the Interpretation Act. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I remind your Lordships that at the Committee stage it was the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I think, who said that this was all gobbledegook. It certainly is so to any layman or to any Member of your Lordships' House reading it in the ordinary way—and, I would also add, to the lawyers, even to the Law Lords. In order to understand this clause I have read the report and the reasoning of the legal draftsman, and I find myself in complete agreement with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Really, it is absolutely unnecessary to have all this clause in at all. It is perfectly plain that the 1847 Act, as extended or applied, will continue to apply here; and all that they have done in this subsection (3) is to insert the word "incorporated". "Incorporated" is already included in "applied". I will not trouble your Lordships with all this legal argument about words; the legal draftsman has gone into it all. It appals me. It ought not to remain on the statute book. It is quite unnecessary; and, being unnecessary, do not give anybody else the trouble of trying to agree to it. I have had enough trouble with it. Do not let anyone else, lawyers or others, be put to the trouble of reading it again. I hope it will be omitted because it is no good: it is quite unnecessary.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, even at this hour I cannot disguise my eagerness to support the amendment so cogently moved by my noble and learned friend, if I may so term him, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I have long believed that intelligence, sensitivity, wisdom and all kinds of other virtues reside on the Government Front Bench. I had hoped that some sense of shyness or shame, some doubt, might have been sown in those regions by what was said about this subsection during the Committee stage. But this horrible creature is still on the pages of the Bill and there is no amendment down in the names of Ministers to erase the nasty little thing.
During the Committee stage I thought it only kindness to read out loud the words that your Lordships are asked to allow to remain in the Bill. I would venture to do so again, merely for the convenience of those of your Lordships who do not have a copy of the Bill immediately in front of them. These are the words of this subsection that your Lordships are asked to perpetuate:
"(3) Without prejudice to section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (references to an enactment to include references to that enactment as extended or applied by or under any other enactment), the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is amended by subsection (1) above for all purposes for which it applies (and accordingly, as it has effect as incorporated, extended or applied by or under any other enactment)."
Mercifully, that is the end of that horrible little subsection. I very much hope that even at this hour perhaps we might just awaken in my noble friends some distaste. My noble friends have very great difficulty in piloting Bills of this kind through your Lordships' House and they may be weary, but I do not despair of awakening in their minds such elements of distaste as might cause them to disgorge this horror and to regard it as unnecessary, ugly and wholly to be condemned. I really just wait in silence for some
442
reaction from the Government Front Bench, because I am loath to be driven to the conclusion that they have become so insensitive to bad taste and to horrible language.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer. I merely pause to speculate whether the word "hogwash" might be used. I think I did say at Committee stage that it was "legislative gobbledegook", but I really wonder whether "hogwash" is a parliamentary term. If it is, perhaps I could use it, albeit with the sense that one is bestowing a compliment on a ghastly piece of so-called English that in no way deserves to be described as "legislative hogwash".
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who has given us the benefit of this most excellent exposition not only of this clause but of the Bill as a whole, does not regard this as a wrecking amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is an expert in wrecking amendments and I do not wish to compete with him in that. I am merely trying to delete from an otherwise useful measure a really horrible sore thumb, which I rely upon my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale to say is not only ugly but unnecessary.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I suggest that the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is a serious amendment designed to improve the Bill. There is no question of this being a wrecking amendment. Both noble and learned Lords and I, and perhaps—I am not sure—my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, were sent by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in August a most interesting and helpful letter, to which he attached a very long memorandum by parliamentary counsel of a kind which it is very unusual for us to receive. Therefore, I do not wish to be churlish about it. But just over three pages of that memorandum attempted to justify the inclusion of this subsection (3) in the clause.
I must say that I was very surprised at the reasons given, because one of them was that the report of the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman having recommended textual amendment, textual amendment having been used in the previous two subsections, subsection (3) was a natural result of having used textual amendment. I pondered over this and I read the memorandum three times, but I really could not follow that reasoning.
Indeed, I think much more potent, if he were to quote the advice of that report, would be for him to remember—I am afraid that I do not have it with me—that recommendation which stated that a Bill presented to Parliament should be regarded primarily as something which convey the law to the users of the Bill, to the citizens, rather than being for the benefit of the legislators. I have to say that this subsection is certainly of no value to the users of the Bill. We have heard what some legislators have had to say about it and I must say that, when we find that a

443
subsection is of no value either to the legislators or to the users, it would seem that we should try to do without it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before coming on to Amendment No. 36, may I just revert to a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raised earlier in the proceedings. He raised a technical point of drafting in connection with Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 to Clause 15.I have been advised to direct the attention of the noble and learned Lord to subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1889. This states in terms that the Act of 1889 shall be deemed to be incorporated with the Public Health Act 1885. I hope that this meets the point of the noble and learned Lord, but if not I shall be happy to discuss it further with him.
May I now turn to this fascinating subsection (3) which has caused a very interesting debate? During the Committee stage debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, expressed doubts about the need for this subsection and he was supported by other noble and learned Lords and noble Lords. We put all the concerns to the draftsman and, as the noble and learned Lord has said, we have corresponded with him, but we have perhaps failed to explain clearly enough the reasons for the inclusion of this provision.
This is a formidable provision which we ourselves would have omitted had that been possible. Your Lordships might find it helpful therefore if I explain what it does and why it is necessary. Its purpose is to ensure that the amendments made by the two preceding subsections of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 have effect wherever that Act is in force. This would normally have been achieved automatically by the action of the Interpretation Act 1978 but that Act cannot be relied upon in this case.
The reason for this is that the Town Police Clauses Act never has had direct application. As has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, it consists of a collection of standard clauses which have effect only when incorporated in another Act. In this case the principal incorporation has been into the Public Health Act 1875 but it may also be incorporated into local Acts. This was a legislative technique popular in the 19th century designed, I believe, to introduce some uniformity into local Acts.
When an Act is amended Section 20 (2) of the Interpretation Act has the effect of carrying the amendment through into any other enactment which extends or applies the first Act. Unfortunately, it does not deal with incorporation so we are left with the choice of either amending the Interpretation Act—which I am sure the whole House would agree would be the wrong approach—or making provision in this Bill. If we were to do neither subsections (1) and (2) would apply only to new incorporations—as from now that is—of the 1847 Act and so would be almost totally ineffective.
I find myself in a difficult position. Perhaps I may put it into layman's language as I understand it. The Government have been categorically advised that this subsection is necessary while the noble and learned Lord with his wide experience in these matters is
444
strongly of the view that it is not. I cannot pretend to be a judge in such matters but I feel that it would be irresponsible of me to ignore the advice that has been proffered to the Government. If the draftsman's advice was wrong little harm would result from following that advice—merely these seven lines in 170 pages would be redundant. If, however, the draftsman was right and we ignored his advice this entire clause, Clause 16, about which we have agonised so long, would be without effect.
My noble friend Lord Peyton says that it is all hogwash and gobbledygook. I know it is difficult, but my noble friend supports, I believe, the principles of Clause 16 as does my noble friend Lord Renton. If we ignore the draftsman's advice and this clause becomes without effect, then the principles which we support on this side of the House, and which noble Lords elsewhere in the Chamber support too, will be without effect. That is a very serious undermining of the Bill.
Given that balance of consequences, I hope your Lordships will agree with me that we must guard against complete failure by retaining this provision. However, I have one ray of sunshine and that was that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that he was appalled by the legal difficulties. If the noble and learned Lord is appalled I can only be glad to hide in his shadow and say that I am equally appalled. What I can do is, without any commitment to the future, take it back to our draftsman because I know the feeling in this House. I know that noble and learned Lords and my noble friends are concerned. I can take it back and see what can be done, if anything, but I must reiterate that our firm advice is that the subsection is necessary as drafted.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Against the immense judicial authority of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning and the great parliamentary and ministerial authority of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Peyton, the noble Earl showed a staunch front.
However, the noble Earl said that he would reconsider this matter. When I wrote to him, I only outlined the argument and undertook not to press this amendment to a Division so that he would have an opportunity of considering the full argument. I can only say—and I am reinforced in this by the views that have been expressed—that in my respectful submission this subsection is entirely unnecessary. The situation is entirely governed by the Interpretation Act and I trust that the second thoughts of the noble Earl will be better than his first. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 18, line 11, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (2)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment arises from our investigation of questions raised at the Committee stage by a number of noble Lords. We realise that those questions threw up a minor error in subsection (3). It has effect only to subsection (1) and not to both subsections (1) and (2), as it must.
Amendment No. 37 corrects that error and I am grateful to all noble Lords for the part they played at Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 38:
Leave out Clause 16.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hasten to assure your Lordships that I do not intend to invite the House to divide on this amendment, but I shall use it as a last opportunity—for that is what it is—to press the Government as to their intentions for improving the form and drafting of Clause 16.
On 22nd August, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne wrote to me with a quotation from parliamentary counsel, and a very tangible one. We should be grateful for it:
"No one who has tangled with the taxi code would dissent from the proposition that a complete overhaul of this branch of the law is not merely desirable but essential. It is disgraceful that this part of the statute book has been allowed to fall into such disrepair but there can be no half measures but a reworking"—
I believe he meant rewording—
"of the 1847 Act. It is not feasible to re-write the odd section. What is required is a clean sweep".
Of course we wholeheartedly agree—and so do the Government. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne went on to state:
"We have given a firm undertaking to review all taxi and hire car legislation".
He added that he hoped this would result in a compact taxi code based on an objective view of the role of these vehicles in the provision of public transport.
I wish to ask my noble friend three questions. The first is: when will this work be done? The second is: how soon will it start? Thirdly: when shall we have a Bill? I think we are entitled to be given some idea of the answers to those three questions.
That is my main purpose in moving this amendment, but I have a subsidiary purpose, and it is this. If your Lordships would be so good as to look at subsection (4), to which no reference has so far been made today, we find it goes beyond the headnote to Clause 16 at the foot of page 17, which reads:
"Taxis in England and Wales: control of numbers and application of taxi code to eight-seaters".
We can see that the first two subsections (and, if we have to put up with it, the third subsection as well) do refer to taxis. But subsection (4) darts off in another direction. It says:
"In England and Wales, the provisions made by or under any enactments which apply to motor vehicles used … to carry passengers under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle"—
that is not merely taxis—
"… and… to ply for hire for such use; shall apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than nine passengers as they apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than eight passengers".
Therefore, it seems to me that subsection (4) should be in a separate clause. No amendment would be necessary to achieve this. It can be done administratively when the Bill is reprinted for our consideration on Third Reading. So may I leave that thought with my noble friend? Perhaps he may not be able to give an answer definitely on that point now, but
446
I do suggest it would be worth doing. It might save some of the confusion which arises on this clause as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I say a word about this? In framing this clause the draftsman has used the technique of going back to the 1847 Act, which does not apply to any modern clauses. You have to look at that Act first and amend it. You have to look at the 1875 Act, which is again incorporated, to see what extent it is amended. You have to look at several other Acts before you can get down to this at all. The noble Lord says it ought all to be combined in one big code because it is not feasible to rewrite the odd section; what is required is a clean sweep.
It is perfectly feasible and simple to deal with this one point in one sentence. I am taking it from what is already there. It can be that the licensing authority, if you like, may refuse a licence—and I go into the words of the amendment—
"if, but only if, they are satisfied there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages within the prescribed distance which is unmet".
That is a simple clause and just says that the licensing authority may refuse it if there is no demand which is not already met.
A short sentence like that would have solved all this trouble, instead of which we have to go through the tremendous complication of the 1847 Act. In other words, a simple sentence could have achieved the whole thing. In a way I should like to leave out the clause, but, on the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said, he does not want to press it. But it is a thoroughly bad clause.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for raising this particular point about the future. Before dealing with that, perhaps I may first deal with Clause 16(4). The purpose is to cure a technical fault in the legislation relating to eight-seater passenger vehicles. At present passenger vehicles with eight passenger seats hired as a whole with the services of a driver and which ply for hire are neither public service vehicles nor taxis. This subsection brings them within the scope of the taxi code. This is a technical but necessary amendment to existing legislation that should stand part of the Bill. However, I take on board what my noble friend said and I shall raise it with the draftsmen as soon as possible.
With regard to the three questions which my noble friend raised earlier relating to future legislation, I am very happy to repeat the undertakings given in Committee by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. Once the provisions of this Bill have been implemented, we shall be carrying out a major review of hire car and taxi legislation. How long that will take, I do not know. Obviously one wants to do a thorough review in the shortest possible time. We shall need to consult and as soon as consultations have ended the Government will have to come to a decision. However, on the date on which legislation will come forward, naturally I am not in a position to answer my noble friend at this stage. It is our intention to review the code with the aim of bringing in legislation at an early date. I know that that is not a very satisfactory answer but I cannot make any further commitment at this stage.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend said that the review will start as soon as the Bill has been passed and implemented. "Implemented" is the operative word. To find out when it will be implemented we have to turn to the last clause of the Bill, Clause 132, and we find that the Bill, apart from certain specified sections,
"shall come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".
So there is no certainty as to when the Bill will be implemented after it has been passed. Moreover of course the word "implemented" perhaps extends to a later stage than the mere bringing into operation. It could be said that the Bill will not have been implemented until all the district councils have made their decisions so far as concerns the application of the taxi code. Therefore, we have an undertaking which is—and I hesitate to say so because one must be grateful for small mercies—somewhat nebulous.
My noble friend did not mention consultation although he has been kind enough to show me a copy of the intended consultation paper. I assume there will be consultation, and that is one of the matters which will of course take a little time. Are we to understand therefore that it will be not merely consolidation of the existing law and a re-writing of it as it is, but that changes may even be made in it as a result of the consultation; or is the consultation merely to be referred to the drafting? I should not have thought that was the position having seen the consultation paper.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I think that I mentioned consultations. If I did not, I apologise as I meant to mention the fact that there would be consultation because, as my noble friend rightly points out, we have discussed this aspect. If from the consultations and investigation into the whole of the taxi and hire car legislation it becomes evident that further legislation is required, and amendments to the current legislation are also required, that will be undertaken at a suitable time which, as my noble friend knows better than I, depends on various other factors.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am much obliged.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, it might be appropriate at this time to remind the House of something that I said at the Committee stage of this Bill, which is that every Government since the late 1930s has promised separate reviews and legislation concerning the taxi and hire car industry, and it would be very nice to know that this Government actually mean what they say and will honour that promise. The other comment I should like to make is to remind the noble Earl that the Liberal Party is a very broad church indeed; with our SDP allies, it is becoming even broader, and there are many shades of opinion which flourish and are housed under its roof.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 38.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [London taxi and taxi driver licensing: appeals]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 42:
Page 18, line 35, leave out from ("to") to end of line 36 and insert ("the appropriate court")
Page 19, line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of line 2 and insert ("the appropriate court")
Page 19, line 3, leave out ("a magistrates") and insert ("the")
Page 19, line 26, at end inser—
("(10) In this section "the appropriate court" means the magistrates' court for the petty session area in which the licensing authority has his office or, if he has more than one office, his principal office.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 39 and at the same time I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I shall move all four en bloc.
This is a group of technical amendments which have the effect of changing the magistrates' court to which these appeals are to be made from that for the area in which the appellant resides to the court for the area in which the licensing authority has its office. During the Committee debate the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, pointed out that the previous arrangement might prove inconvenient, in that many taxi drivers live well outside London. He had a valid point and I think my noble friend Lord Trefgarne undertook to bring forward this amendment. It is an improvement to a provision which has been generally welcomed and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for bringing it to our attention. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I think it is true to say that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, undertook to take this matter away and to think about it; I do not think he actually undertook to bring back legislation, but I am very glad that the Government have done so. This will be a considerable relief to people, and save them trekking to courts in obscure parts of the Great Wen. I am glad that the Government at least do not believe that I am always moving wrecking amendments and that I can in fact have some purpose in your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Permits in relation to use of buses by educational and other bodies]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 20, line 11, at end insert—
("() is being driven by a person who either holds a public service vehicle driver's licence or in the case of a small bus has passed a test of competence to drive such a vehicle;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that your Lordships will find that what I have to say is really rather dull compared with what has been said before. I shall not indulge in historical rhetoric—if I did, it would not be in the least amusing—but I beg to move Amendment No. 43, and with it I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 44 to 47 and Amendment No. 49.
Amendment No. 44: Page 20, line 34, leave out ("large").
Amendment No. 45: Page 20, line 36, at end insert ("and shall suspend or revoke a permit, by whomsoever granted, if he has evidence that any bus used under the permit in the traffic area for which he is commissioner is not adequately maintained.").
Amendment No. 46: Page 20, line 36, at end insert—
("() Where a traffic commissioner has suspended or revoked a permit under subsection (6) above the suspension shall only be lifted or a new permit granted to the body whose permit was revoked when that commissioner is satisfied that adequate facilities have been provided or arrangements made for maintaining any bus used under the permit in a fit and serviceable condition.").
Amendment No. 47: Clause 21, page 22, line 6, at end insert—
("including the nature of the test of competence to drive a small bus, the qualifications, selection and appointment of persons by whom tests may be conducted and requirements that specified bodies or classes of bodies shall organise the conducting of such tests;").
Amendment No. 49: Page 22, line 21, at end insert—
("(5) In subsection (1)(a) above "specified bodies or classes of bodies" shall include—

(a) the Traffic Commissioners for a Traffic Area;

(b) in England and Wales, the council of any non-metropolitan county, any district or London borough, or the Common Council of the City of London;

(c) in Scotland, a regional or islands council;

(d) the Inner London Education Authority.").

In Committee I very reluctantly withdrew my amendments to introduce new categories of licences for small passenger vehicles and their drivers. I have now considered all that was said in debate at that stage, and while I remain deeply convinced that my amendment provided the best solution from the overall point of view, I bow to the concern of some noble Lords that voluntary organisations might have difficulties with the system. Beyond that I was accused of seeking to clip the wings of the minibus. In truth I only wish that the string by which those wings are secured could be replaced by a few nuts and bolts. But I cannot let this matter go altogether by default. To my knowledge there have been, in the few weeks of the Recess, four accidents involving minibuses. I shall speak about only one of them, because it so clearly demonstrates the reason for my concern. This accident occurred on 21st August last and involved four minibuses taking schoolchildren from a summer camp near York on an outing to Scarborough. There were 60 children driven by volunteer drivers who were socially conscious young men from the university. When one minibus was in collision with a lorry, the remaining vehicles were concertinaed into it. Children were thrown out of the rear door of the minibuses and no fewer than 40 of them had to be taken to hospital for treatment.
This Bill is not mere pieces of paper and when we come on to safety this is an area which affects people's lives. Rather than trying to go too far too quickly I have decided to look at the very minimum that is necessary to provide a reasonable safeguard. On that point, I conclude that driving ability and maintenance are the fundamentals. Many people think that there is no problem for an expert car driver to take on a minibus. That is simply not true. I believe that several interested bodies have published advice for minibus drivers but in particular I should like to refer to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. There is no doubt about the standing of that august society in matters such as this, and it is significant that it thinks it necessary to produce a special book or booklet as an introduction to even basic minibus driving. That book or booklet has yet to be published but I have had an opportunity of seeing the draft. I shall quote just one paragraph which is relevant:
450
"It may be felt by drivers who have accumulated a number of incident-free miles in saloon cars that little extra training is called for. However, the differences mentioned above are quite pronounced, and are not only the obvious ones of size and weight. The mere fact of carrying a number of passengers, in some cases perhaps children or handicapped people, adds considerably to the driver's workload. It is therefore tremendously important both for the sake of the passengers and other road users that he or she makes adequate preparation for this new task".
Amendments Nos. 43,47 and 49 are the ones which deal with the driver. They require that the driver shall have passed a test of competence and provide the means by which the Secretary of State can determine the nature of the test and other necessary administrative matters—regarding examiners and the establishment of testing schemes. Because many people may be involved it is necessary to make the widest possible provision of those competent to conduct the tests.
I have dealt with the driver; I go on to the safety of the vehicles. Under the Bill the issue of minibus permits for the operation of buses with more than 16 seats—like community buses with eight to 16 seats—is subject to prior consideration of the facilities or arrangements for the maintenance of the vehicle, yet there is no such consideration of maintenance before the issue of permits for the use of buses with eight to 16 seats under a minibus permit. That is illogical because it means that a most important aspect of passenger safety is left unchecked for the vast majority of minibuses being operated under permits. 1 have reason to believe that a lot of minibuses which should be under permits are not.
However, I have been compelled to recognise that many bodies designated to issue minibus permits would be quite incapable of checking the maintenance facilities or arrangements of the applicant. Therefore, although reluctantly, I have concluded that every dog must be allowed one bite—but only one. If it becomes apparent that the permit holder is failing in practice to maintain the vehicle, the traffic commissioner should undoubtedly take action against the permit. It must remain of no validity until he is satisfied that the necessary steps have been taken to protect the safety of those travelling in the minibus and of all other road users. One recognises of course that in Clause 20(5) there is provision for the commissioner to consult with the body issuing the permit, if he did not issue it, but that subsection in itself is not enough to meet the situation.
I wish that it was not necessary to move these amendments but the facts rather speak for themselves. There are too many accidents involving minibuses driven by those not sufficiently prepared for the job and due to laxity over maintenance. These minibuses often serve the disabled and under-privileged. It is important that we give them proper protection. We do not want bureaucracy but we must have realism in dealing with the matter. I believe that I am offering the minimum possible. I recommend these amendments for your Lordships to consider. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must confess that when the noble Lord moved amendments on this subject in Committee I had grave reservations about them. He was proposing at that time that there should be a special licence for small public service vehicles. I felt, as I believe did a number of my noble

451
friends, that this could bear very hardly on community transport, transport run by educational bodies, the social services and so on. I do not think that anyone knows how many people would have had to take such a small public service vehicle test. One can hazard a guess that it would be many times the number of those who take a test for PSV licences. It could be five or 10 times that number. And the amount of bureaucracy and delay involved would have been horrific.
One can imagine the typical school that has a minibus partly used for taking pupils to sports events and partly used for longer holidays and even visits abroad. The prospect of 20 or 25 teachers in a school with 50 teachers having to take a special test of the sort that was originally proposed is intolerable.
My other reservation relates to the role of local authorities. After all, local authorities are themselves the largest single operators of small vehicles of this kind—minibuses. Outside the metropolitan areas, education authorites and social services authorities are different tiers of government. Nevertheless, they have the experience and they are able to make more readily available than through a more formal structure the kind of testing which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, now intends, I believe, in his amendments, which I welcome.
I am conscious that there is available in Derbyshire, through the county council, a testing procedure for drivers of minibuses that does not appear to cause any enormous delays in qualifications. Tests are carried out by people who have PSV licences themselves rather than by professional driver testers. There are not the kind of delays that exist with either PSV licences or ordinary driving licences.
I believe, and I hope, that the intention behind this set of amendments is to bring other councils up to the standard of Derbyshire which, it has been shown, can be achieved without undue bureaucracy by councils. A sensible compromise is being proposed here between the more extreme amendments proposed last time and the rather extreme laissez-faire, which I suggest is the position of the Bill before your Lordships at the moment. I commend the amendments to the House.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I was not here, I am afraid, when this began, and I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Teviot; I may have missed some of it. Before we go any further I should like to say that I am most concerned about the subject of community buses. The record of community buses is, I understand, a good one. I can understand the feeling of people who operate and drive them, that they should at least be allowed to do what everybody else among the general public is allowed to do with a minibus. I suspect that the record of community buses by way of driving safety on the roads is far better than that of the general public in minibuses.
These services are the last ditch for the village when there is great difficulty over transport; and it is also a very difficult job to get such services started. They are voluntary organisations. The organiser is the most important person in the whole set-up; and so are the drivers important. Usually the vehicle is under the
452
supervision of the local education authority or a bus company. Their reputation for safety, as I understand it, is an excellent one.
I do not want to see costs rising for the community buses. Of course, if they have to go in for the full PSV licence treatment, I believe that it costs £100 for every community bus. I should just like to make those points.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for moving his six amendments en bloc. This enables us to have a more comprehensive and constructive discussion on these matters. If I can divide his six amendments into two, I deal firstly with Amendments Nos. 43, 47 and 49—what I call the drivers' test and control amendments. The Government accept that the existing provisions on the licensing of bus drivers have developed in a haphazard way and are in need of revision. In particular, as my honourable friend Mr. David Mitchell conceded in another place during Committee stage, there is a strong case for ensuring that drivers of all large buses—not just the relatively small number covered by permits—are adequately qualified or can initially show relevant experience. The case for testing minibus drivers is, I believe, more questionable. While their drivers need to be familiar with the needs of passenger-carrying on a larger scale than a private car, these vehicles are far less demanding than the general run of large buses and it is debatable whether any specific skills are involved.
I would remind the House that this Amendment, No. 43, relates only to vehicles driven under permits; that is, those run by voluntary organisations where some payment is made. It would leave untouched the much larger number of minibuses, private or commercial, or where the passengers do not pay. Surely that is illogical. Why is my noble friend attacking this one small section of minibuses and leaving the rest on the side? It is, I believe, an entirely illogical approach in tackling this problem, as he sees it. If we decided that a special test should be required for driving minibuses other than public service vehicles, I feel sure that it should be required for all and not just permit vehicles.
That is just one of many points and questions which need to be comprehensively reviewed and debated. However, I can assure the House that it remains the Government's intention to introduce new legislation to modernise the provisions on the driving of buses in a way which will give opportunities for full consultation and debate. These amendments Nos. 43, 47 and 49 tackle the issue in a piecemeal, haphazard and, I believe, totally unsatisfactory way. With the assurance I have just given, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw these amendments and come back to this matter when we deal with it in more detail.
Let me turn now, if I may, to the remaining three amendments, Nos. 44,45 and 46. When I looked back at the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Teviot at Committee stage in relation to small passenger vehicle licensing I felt that I should commend him for the concise way in which he has drafted his new amendments. But, very regrettably, they are not very much different from his old

453
proposals. They seek to make these permits more like a form of operator's licence issued by the traffic commissioners.
In fact, permits are a sensible means for voluntary bodies who charge their passengers to avoid the unfortunate consequences of straying into the realms of hire or reward operations. They do not do so for profit, nor are they in any sense in competition with commercial PSV operators. In reality they are often not much different from any of the social and community groups or public-spirited individuals who own and run minibuses for their organisations without any form of charging. Indeed my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, to whom I am grateful for joining in this short debate, stressed the importance of this sector.
I fail to see why they must be subject to the traffic commissioners' scrutiny. After all we do not require private individuals who own and run minibuses to submit details of their maintenance arrangements to the traffic commissioners. Do we really want to do so in this case? My noble friend is being grossly unfair. Is it really appropriate to create all this extra bureaucracy with the effect that it will have on community transport, on the disabled, on the local scoutmaster, on the local churchwarden doing his bit? My noble friend has picked on these people in an unnecessary way. I hope that he will see fit to withdraw all these amendments. If he looks back at what happened when the recent minibus legislation came through the House he will see that it was warmly welcomed on all sides, and I have seen no evidence to show that it is not working satisfactorily.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend is going to be slightly disappointed as I am not going to withdraw these amendments. I must deal with this point by point. I am grateful that we have not had a purely political answer from the Front Bench, talking about the main thrust of this Bill. At least the Front Bench has produced arguments to this amendment, although I do not agree with them. I hope for the rest of the Bill they will keep on those lines.
The first noble Lord to speak was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He thought that my "extreme" amendments at Committee stage were not acceptable, and, now that he realises they are less extreme, I am glad to have his support. My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton spoke about community buses in the villages and that sort of area. Villages are delighted to see any form of vehicle. I happen to know that the county in which I once lived and from which I now live a stone's throw away has introduced some rather interesting schemes. They have provided buses down lanes 6 1/2 feet wide, and will provide—and I hope the public are going to support them—a service. I am not arguing against that at all.
At the Committee stage I spoke for some 20 minutes, for which I apologised profusely, and I have had my nose rubbed in it not once but about 20 times to the effect that I am trying to disturb the Bill yet again, but I am not. I am delighted to see that my noble friend Lord Caithness has had a well deserved promotion. I thought it was slightly unfair when he spoke about the archaic term "stage carriage" and two minutes later the answer was "local bus service". I still
454
prefer "stage carriage". It means rather more than "local bus service", which can be misconstrued.
I come back to the amendment and the section of it dealing with the driver. I am pleased that the Government accept that the licensing of drivers is haphazard and that the Government are going to look into that. My noble friend brought up the point about those who are paid and those not paid. For those not paid it would be patently unfortunate if somebody who buys a minibus and takes his family and has a holiday either at home or on the Continent had. as an individual, to come under some form of regulation. Surely there must be a division between the chap driving his family and one taking schoolchildren somewhere. There is a difference.
The Earl of Caithness: Why?
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I shall tell my noble friend why. After all, we might come into a very different state from the one we are living in. An individual buying for himself and his immediate family is rather different from someone carrying others. I could go on with this for a long time, and indeed I shall. If my noble friend wishes to intervene and says that I am talking absolute nonsense, fair enough. I made a note about buses and minibuses, but I think I have dealt with that.
I now go on to vehicles and what is sensible and not sensible. I feel this is an area of safety where the Government have not taken notice. We are again in the realms of many minibus services, stage carriage or local bus services, where people will not be equipped to drive nor equipped to service the vehicles. The examples I have given have been proved, even in the Summer Recess, as unsatisfactory.
At Committee stage I quoted a personal experience when I had to get into a bus, not having been in a bus for some years. When I last drove a bus it had a large hand brake and also a gear. All sorts of little nonsenses have occurred. I feel the Government have not taken this matter responsibly and it is something about which even at this late hour I must ask your Lordships' indulgence and divide.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Permits under section 19: regulations]: [Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 22, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 297 and 377:
Amendment No. 297: Clause 127, page 129, line 43, at end insert ("; and in subsection (2) of that section (duty to consult before making regulations under section 59 or 60 of that Act) the words "section 59 or 60 of shall be omitted").
Amendment No. 377: Schedule 7, page 172, line 31, column 3, at insert—

("In section 61(2) the words "section 59 or 60 of" ").

These are technical amendments to ensure that Section 61(2) of the 1981 Act, which requires consultation with representative bodies, will apply to

455
any regulations made under the 1981 Act in Parts I and II of this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Objections to application for PSV operators' licences]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 25, line l, leave out ("Act of 1981") and insert ("1981 Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54 and 61:
Amendment No. 51: Page 25, line 3, leave out from beginning to second ("the") in line 18 and insert—
("Objections to application for PSV operator's licence.
. [4A.—(1) Where an application is made for the grant of a PSV operator's licence under this Act any chief officer of police or local authority may object to the grant of the licence on the ground that one or more of the requirements mentioned in section 14(1) and (3) of this Act are not satisfied in relation to")
Amendment No. 52: Page 25, line 21, leave out from ("manner") to ("and"), in line 22.
Amendment No. 53: Page 25, line 27, at end insert—
("(4A) In this section "local authority" means—

(a) in England and Wales, the council of a county, district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London; and

(b) in Scotland, a regional or islands council.").

Amendment No. 54: Page 25, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 61: Clause 31, page 29, line 19, at end insert—
("(2A) Where an application for a PSV operator's licence is granted under this Act and a person who duly made an objection to the grant under section 14A of this Act is aggrieved by the grant of the licence he may appeal to the Transport Tribunal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that Clause 25 was moved into the Bill by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, who I regret is absent today, and was carried against the Government. I should like to explain briefly the amendments I am moving and speaking to now. Amendment No. 50 merely brings the reference to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 into line with that used elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment No. 52 deletes the requirement for publication from this clause, but publication will be in Notices and Proceedings under Amendment No. 11, which was an amendment to Clause 3 which your Lordships will recall we dealt with earlier this afternoon.
Amendment No. 54 deletes the provision for appeals from this clause, but the amendment to Clause 31 puts it in that clause which we believe is a more appropriate place. Your Lordships will note that the appellate body is to be the Transport Tribunal, as with other operator licensing appeals, not my right honourable friend as in the amendment. I think that was an inadvertence on the part of the movers of the amendment at Committee stage.
10.45 p.m.
However, the most significant change which I am proposing to your Lordships is the question of appeal rights. We have thought carefully about this in the light of the lengthy discussions in Committee in another place, as well as those we had in the debate at the Committee stage on this amendment in your Lordships' House. The conclusion that we on this side
456
of the House have reached is that a right of objection for local authorities and the police when someone is applying for an operator's licence is acceptable. It is true that it was not our proposal and we should have preferred it not to be there. But we can see the case for giving formal status of this kind to public authorities, which have rights and duties in many other fields that can be paralleled with this one. They will be expected to exercise this right on grounds of public policy. However, we are still convinced that it would be wrong to allow to existing operators a right of objection to new applicants who are their potential competitors. If I may be quite open about this, I believe that has just a little too much of the odour of quantity limitation about it.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the Government's position here is a reasonable one. I should like just to remind your Lordships that applications for operators' licences will be published in notices and proceedings. The traffic commissioner will have to be satisfied of good repute, financial standing and maintenance facilities. He will hold an inquiry if he sees doubts. He will be able to have the advice of a financial assessor. He will have to pay attention to any relevant representations or any information that is put before him by anyone, including other operators. That last point is worth considerable emphasis. Operators or anyone else who have good reason to think that an applicant ought not to have a licence can and should tell the commissioner and he will take account of what he is told. Other operators will not, however, have a right of appeal if your Lordships agree to these amendments. The traffic commissioner grants a licence and that is all.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 51:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Teviot had given notice of his intention to move manuscript Amendment No. 51 A:
Page 25, line 18 at end insert—
("and any holder of a PSV operator's licence may make representations to the traffic commissioner concerning those requirements.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord De La Warr is not in his seat at the moment and is away. I intended to move this amendment. However, if the House will bear with me, there is one particular point I should like to refer to at Third Reading when my noble friend is in his place. I think then would be the best time to move the amendment. Therefore I shall not move manuscript Amendment No. 51 A.
[Manuscript Amendment No. 51A not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 54. [Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 52 to 54 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 26, line 18, leave out ("shall not") and insert ("may")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. This concerns a subect that I mentioned in Committee and I believe the Government have news for me on that point.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Belstead, I say no more than that this amendment is entirely acceptable, and I thank my noble friend for tabling it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 26, line 20, leave out from ("subsection") to second ("or") in line 22 and insert ("if, but only if, it appears to him that the operator did not have a reasonable excuse for his conduct")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Conditions attached to PSV operator's licence]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 57:
[Printed earlier: col. 413.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 17.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 57):
Page 26, line 27, at end insert—
("2A) Where the effect of a condition attached to a PSV operator's licence under subsection (1) above is that the operator of a local service registered under section 6 of this Act is prohibited from using vehicles under the licence to provide that service, the traffic commissioner attaching the condition may—

(a) cancel the registration; or

(b) where the service is registered with another traffic commissioner, direct that it be cancelled.

(2B) Where a direction is given under subsection (2A)(b) above, it shall be the duty of the traffic commissioner with whom the service is registered to cancel the registration.")
Clause 27 [Supplementary provisions with respect to conditions attached to PSV operators' licences under section 26]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 27, line 8, leave out from ("has") to end of line 9 and insert (", within the prescribed period, received a request for an inquiry from the holder of, or (as the case may be) applicant for, the licence.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment to ensure that Clause 27(1) applies to applicants for licences as well as holders of licences. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 en bloc:
[Printed earlier: col. 398.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 together. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 6.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 59 and 60):
Page 27, line 23, leave out ("the 1981") and insert ("that")
Page 27, line 26, leave out ("the 1981") and insert ("that")
Clause 31 [Appeals under the 1981 Act]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 61:
[Printed earlier: col. 455.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Belstead with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 61):
Page 29, line 19, at end insert—
("2A) Where an application for a PSV operator's licence is granted under this Act and a person who duly made an objection to the grant under section 14A of this Act is aggrieved by the grant of the licence he may appeal to the Transport Tribunal.")
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 30, line 19, leave out ("Subsections (3) to (7) above do") and insert ("This section does")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, appeals relating to traffic regulation conditions are to go to the Secretary of State as provided by Clause 9, while other operator licensing appeals are to go to the transport tribunal. An overlap has been discovered in Clause 31 as drafted, affecting applicants for new or renewal licences. The amendment regularises this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Extension of safety controls to certain passenger vehicles other than public service vehicles]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 31, line 26, leave out from ("the") to end of line 31 and insert ("omission of subsection (4)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which makes the maximum penalty for contravening a prohibition the same—Level 5, which is currently £2,000—irrespective of whether the vehicle is a public service or not, may I thank my noble friend Lord Sandford for drawing the matter to our attention on behalf of my noble friend Lady Vickers at the Committee stage? We are persuaded that the maximum penalty should be the same for an offence that can be very serious in terms of road safety. It will be up to the courts to decide the actual penalty in the light of all the circumstances of an individual offence. I beg to move.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Minister for putting down this amendment. He was very kind at the Committee stage and gave every help to me. I am grateful to him for looking into it and succeeding in getting much better wording than mine. I should also like to thank Lord Sandford, who backed me in the other amendment. Between the two of us, we managed to get two amendments accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Clause 34 [London local services]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 en bloc:
Page 31, leave out lines 36 and 37.
Page 32, line 1, after ("Act") insert—
("(a) "bus service" means a local service other than an excursion or tour; and
(b)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 72 and 298.

459
Amendment No. 72: In Clause 45, page 41, line 39, leave out (" "London bus service" has the meaning") and insert (" "bus service" and "London bus service" have the meanings")
Amendment No. 298: In Clause 129, page 130, leave out lines 31 and 32.
These are purely technical amendments. The definition of a bus service given in Clause 34 is relevant only for Part II of the Bill. These amendments ensure that the definition is confined to Part II. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36 [London bus services under control of London Regional Transport]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 34, line 11, leave out ("under section 23(3) of this Act to")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on a change made to the Bill at Report stage in another place. The power to impose traffic regulation conditions under what is now Clause 8 is extended to community bus permits as well as to PSV operators' licences. The effect of this amendment is to remove the reference to Clause 23(3), which is no longer necessary, so that the reference to Clause 8 embraces both licences and permits. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 34, line 15, leave out ("the Greater London Council and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 70, 73, 74 and 208.
Amendment No. 70: In Clause 37, page 35, line 16, leave out ("Greater London Council") and insert ("council of a London borough or by the Common Council;").
Amendment No. 73: In Clause 45, page 42, line 4, leave out ("the Greater London Council and").
Amendment No. 74: Page 42, line 13, leave out ("the Greater London Council and").
Amendment No. 208: In Clause 80, page 84, line 42, leave out ("the Greater London Council").
These amendments are consequential on the enactment of the Local Government Act 1985. They remove references to the Greater London Council which are not needed as Clauses 36, 37 and 45 will not be brought into force until after the GLC has been abolished on 1st April 1986. Clause 80 need not refer to the GLC as its controls on the operation of bus stations are to protect free competition on deregulation. The amendment to Clause 37 replaces the requirement for the traffic commissioner to have regard to transport policies and plans for the GLC with a requirement to have regard to such documents prepared by the boroughs and the City. In the other cases, the boroughs are already mentioned as well as the GLC, and no replacement is needed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 34, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
("(a) in the case of a proposal to which subsection (2) above applies, any part of the route in question or (as the case may be) the point, place or street in question;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a mistake in Clause 36. This clause is a reenactment
460
of Section 43 of the London Regional Transport Act. It requires LRT to consult local authorities before changing their bus routes. As it is drafted at present, LRT would not be able to move a single bus stop without consulting every local authority in whose area the service operates. The amendment restores the existing position, which is that they need consult only the local authority in whose area the bus stop is situated.
I should emphasise that this applies only to bus stops and terminal workings. If LRT want to change the route of the service, they must still consult every local authority in whose area any part of the route in question is situated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 34, line 23, leave out ("an existing bus service") and insert ("a proposal to which subsection (4) above applies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should have said in moving Amendment No. 68 that these two amendments go together. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Grant of licences]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 70:
[Printed earlier: col. 459.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 70):
Page 35, line 16, leave out ("Greater London Council") and insert ("council of a London borough or by the Common Council;").
Clause 41 [Duration of licences]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 38, line 26, leave out ("at the end of that period") and insert (", on the date on which a London local service licence is due to expire,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment removes an ambiguity from the present drafting of Clause 41, which governs the duration of London local service licences. The phrase "that period" at the beginning of subsection (2) is ambiguous because two different periods are referred to in subsection (1). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 72:
[Printed earlier: col. 459.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 72):
Page 41, line 39, leave out (" "London bus service" has the meaning") and insert (" "bus service" and "London bus service" have the meanings")
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
[Printed earlier: col. 459.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to both these amendments with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move the two en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 73 and 74):
Page 42, line 4, leave out ("Greater London Council and")
Page 42, line 13, leave out ("Greater London Council and")
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think your Lordships have done extremely well for the first day back at school. I think that perhaps you now deserve your "Beddy-byes". I therefore beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY: PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
  ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY: PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
  DIPLOMATIC PARKING SPACES
  DIPLOMATIC PARKING SPACES
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: UN RESOLUTIONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: UN RESOLUTIONS
  THE HAGUE AND GENEVA CONVENTIONS: POSSIBLE CONTRAVENTION
  THE HAGUE AND GENEVA CONVENTIONS: POSSIBLE CONTRAVENTION
  TENNECO/CASE ACQUISITION: EC ACTION
  TENNECO/CASE ACQUISITION: EC ACTION
  BURNHAM TRIENNIAL REVIEW AND SCALE POSTS
  BURNHAM TRIENNIAL REVIEW AND SCALE POSTS
  GEOPHYSICS: ROYAL SOCIETY REPORT
  GEOPHYSICS: ROYAL SOCIETY REPORT
  HEALTH AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES
  HEALTH AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES
  SOCIAL SERVICES: JUDGE'S COMMENTS
  SOCIAL SERVICES: JUDGE'S COMMENTS
  DRUG ABUSE: THE SERVICES
  DRUG ABUSE: THE SERVICES