My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I understand from the certification officer that of the 12 largest unions, five have submitted annual returns and accounts for 1981. In one other case (the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers) a return is outstanding from the Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section. Six trade unions have not yet submitted their annual returns. They are the National and Local Government Officers' Association; the National Union of Public Employees; the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs; the Electrical, Electronic Telecommunication and Plumbing Union; the National Union of Mineworkers; and the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is a disappointment that so many unions —half of them—should be late in filing their accounts? Is it not a fact that, under Labour legislation of 1974, the unions are obliged to file their accounts for the year by June of the following year? And is my noble friend aware that, in the private sector, if one does not file accounts for a public company, one is threatened with imprisonment—that all the directors can be threatened with imprisonment? Can my noble friend say whether there are any sanctions against unions which transgress along these lines?

I agree with my noble friend that the penalties in the private sector operate under company legislation, whereas those which operate in this particular sector come under the Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act 1974. The position is that there is the possibility of the certification officer to prosecute if he feels that this is necessary. If he does do so the maximum fine is £100 for a trade union or employers' association or individuals of either. The fact is that he has not yet found it appropriate to take this action.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the certification officer—like his predecessor, the Registrar of Friendly Societies—has to submit reports, and that anyone in this land can ascertain whether or not in the specified period, including what is called the "extra time", any trade union or any member of the Confederation of British Industry have submitted their accounts? Is it not a fact that in all the world, the highest standards are maintained in this country by members of the CBI and of the TUC—in short, is this not something of which we ought to be proud?

My Lords, I do not think that I would dissent from the majority of the views just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.

My Lords, as we understand that the maximum fine is £100, is it not rather extraordinary that this amount should be so small, bearing in mind that the total income of the unions is £270 million annually and that 12 million trade unionists are affected?

My Lords, there are in this life all sorts of things which are extraordinary. Perhaps this is one of them.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

No, my Lords. The production of weapons which are to be held on United States territory is a matter for the United States Government.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the proposal is that these weapons shall be located in this country? Is he not concerned about that? Is he aware that the Labour Party has written to President Reagan saying that it opposes the decision of his Administration to produce the enhanced new neutron warhead and to start a new chemical weapons production programme? Is he further aware that the Labour Party goes on to say that a Labour Government would not permit the stationing of these weapons or of cruise missiles in Britain? Will he not follow the same course?

My Lords—

Order!

My Lords, no proposals for the deployment of either of these lots of weapons have been made. So far as the views of the Labour Party are concerned, I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will not think that I am being discourteous when I say that it comes as a great relief to me that Labour Party views do not necessarily reflect world opinion.

My Lords, this Question compels me to ask my noble friend two questions. Firstly, what world, and whose opinion? Secondly, is not the using of your Lordships' House to repeatedly ask Questions of this nature either dangerously naive or bordering on the subversive?

Oh!

My Lords, my noble friend has, I think, every reason to ask the supplementary Question he has asked, because it is quite clear that the question was asked whilst labouring under a misapprehension. My first reply was that no proposals for deployment have been made. That was the answer to the first supplementary question which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked me and to which, presumably, he attached importance. Under those circumstances, it does mean that a Question of this nature is damaging if it is inaccurate—and it is inaccurate.

My Lords, is not the noble Lord the Minister accepting a strange criterion? I believe my noble friend has every right to ask a Question of this kind. I disagree with him in many ways but he does have a perfect right, and there is a large section of the community which agrees with him, whether you like it or not. I am surprised at the noble Lord's answer.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, says that he is surprised at my answer, but the original Answer made it quite clear that the production of weapons which are to be held on United States territory is a matter for the United States Government. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, immediately asked a supplementary question which refuted that Answer. All I can do is to repeat what is the truth: at the moment there are no proposals for deployment of these weapons outside the United States.

My Lords, surely the truth is that production of these weapons by either the Soviet Union or the United States is a matter of genuine concern to many hundreds of millions of people all over the world. Is it not perfectly right that this country, and indeed all the allies of the United States, should be using their influence, now that the START talks have begun in Geneva, to try to obtain the maximum possible reduction of nuclear weapons on both sides?

My Lords, the START talks will not cover these particular weapons.

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is entitled to ask the Question, which undoubtedly he is, whether one likes it or not, is there any reason why my noble friend the Minister should alter his original Answer?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The reason why I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and, with respect, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, is that the supplementary question to the original Question simply refuted the truth of what the Government said. I assure the House that what the Government said in their original Answer is at the moment the case.

My Lords, am I mistaken in thinking that there is an international convention relating to the production of chemical weapons—as distinct from the other kind, the neutron weapons?

My Lords, there is. The hope of the United Kingdom is that there will be a complete ban on chemical weapons, which we, of course, discarded 10 years ago. We put forward proposals for a draft convention in 1976, and now we have put forward proposals for verification—which is at the very heart of being able to ban—at the Geneva talks. I very much hope that we shall be able to make progress in this direction.

My Lords, is it not a fact that we unilaterally discarded chemical weapons 10 years ago? Far from that setting an example to be followed by the Soviet Union, they have multiplied many times the chemical weapons they now have on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain and all their exercises are conducted on the assumption that they will use chemical warfare weapons.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, because here again I think it is important to realise what the facts are. Yes, my noble friend is quite right in suggesting that we in the United Kingdom discarded chemical weapons some 10 years ago. So far as quantities are concerned, the Soviet Union has a huge quantity of up to 700,000 tonnes of chemical agent, really enough to sink Europe, far less to destroy it.

My Lords, is not the noble Lord going a little far in saying that the production on a large scale of chemical weapons by the United States and the Soviet Union is simply a matter for those countries? Surely that is going too far. The British Government are, I hope, already playing an active part on this subject in the United Nations disarmament conference. Is the noble Lord really right to say that the production of any form of weapons, even though not for deployment outside the United States, is not a matter for her allies in NATO? Surely he is going too far.

My Lords, the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question relates to why the United Kingdom six years ago put forward proposals for a ban on the production and the holding of chemical weapons. Because verification always lies at the heart of these matters, we have now put forward proposals for verification in the disarmament talks in Geneva. So far as our interest and concern in production, either in the Soviet Union or in the United States, is concerned, I repeat that, contrary to what is being done by the Soviet Union, there are at the moment no proposals for deployment outside the United States of either of the weapons mentioned in Lord Jenkins' Question.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, at the Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations now meeting in New York, proposals are being made for the prohibition of all new weapons of mass destruction, including the neutron bomb, as well as a proposal for a more comprehensive convention banning the use and production of chemical weapons? What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to those proposals now under consideration?

My Lords, I will reply to that head on. We are encouraged by the Soviet proposals that there should be international verification by means of on-site inspection, something which the Soviet Union has consistently refused to recognise over the years.

My Lords, is not napalm a chemical weapon? Have we not refused to use it ourselves? Can the noble Lord confirm that it was, in fact, used against us in the Falkland Islands?

My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount is touching on a different question. I think that napalm does not fall into the context of chemical weapons.

My Lords, will the Minister agree that our unilateral abandonment of the production of chemical weapons, far from encouraging other nations to abandon them, in fact seems to have encouraged them to increase their manufacture?

My Lords, if that is the road we were to go down then I would agree with the noble Lord that that would be the result.

My Lords, I think that it might be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if we moved on to the next Question.

My Lords—

Order!

My Lords, I thought I had sensed the mood of the House that we had had a fairly long run on this Question and that it might meet with the approval of the House if we moved on.

My Lords, why should the noble Lord not ask a second supplementary?

My Lords, it is simply this, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, knows only too well: the way in which the House operates is by general consent. I think that we have been on this particular Question for some 12 minutes. I am only acting as Leader of your Lordships' House. If I am wrong, then of course I am perfectly happy to take a different view. However, I understood from the remarks which were made both opposite and behind me that it was to the convenience of your Lordships to move on.

My Lords—

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my attention has been drawn to several instances of harm being done to wild animals and plants which will receive protection, or improved protection, when Part 1 is brought fully into operation. Her Majesty's Government deplore such acts. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is well aware of the situation and is hopeful that difficulties in the preparation of the related regulations will shortly be overcome so that the commencement orders can be made.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Are the Government aware that would-be falconers, in particular, appear to be stocking up in advance of Part 1 of the Act being brought into force; that 60 nests of peregrine falcons have been robbed either of eggs or young this spring, which affects 10 per cent. of the British population; and that it is particularly falconers who will be affected by the new procedures brought into force by Part 1 of the Act? When will these procedures be brought into force and when will the Government lay the commencement order?

My Lords, I am indeed aware of —and the noble Lord has been kind enough to draw our attention to—the facts about the rare birds of prey. I agree that the preliminary figures are alarming. Such robberies are, of course, already illegal under the Protection of Birds Act 1954. When the registration and inspection provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act come into force, very careful and detailed checks will be made on the origins of immature birds to see whether they are captive bred or taken from the wild. As far as the laying of commencement orders is concerned, of course I cannot give any complete promise, but, as I said in my earlier Answer, we hope to have these done very soon.

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that answer. I should like to emphasise too—

Question!

My Lords, I should like to give my noble friend some information—

Question!

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on 2nd June, Central Television showed a documentary about destroying bats in Redditch, that certain butterflies are being stockpiled against the time when it will be illegal to catch them, and that lizard orchids, which will be protected when the Bill comes into force, are being dug up and sold abroad? None of those things can be brought home to the public until the Act is in force. The matter is one of great urgency, and I hope that my noble friend will do something.

My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's concern and I am sure that the House will join with me in deploring any action of irresponsible people to use the Act as a convenient early warning as regards those creatures and plants they should now concentrate on collecting before it is too late. The unauthorised uprooting of wild flowers is already illegal, and I understand that the police have been informed in a case which has been given some publicity. Many wild creatures are also protected by current legislation. However, I know that my noble friend is particularly interested in bats and I am greatly encouraged that many responsible people are already coming forward to the Nature Conservancy Council for advice on the new Act, particularly on the protection of bats.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that Members of this House and, indeed, of the public at large, having seen the Act passed by Parliament, are deeply concerned about the failure to implement it by bringing the regulations into force? Will he bring the strongest pressure to bear upon the department concerned to ensure that these regulations are brought into force as quickly as possible, otherwise the purpose of the Act is being defeated every day?

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern and, whereas I do not think that perhaps my pressure may be of much use, I shall certainly bring his pressure to the attention of my right honourable friend.

My Lords, if there has been trouble about some particular sections of the Act, would it not be possible to implement certain sections? Is the noble Earl aware how upset the Botanical Society of the British Isles is about the news it is getting of plants being uprooted? The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has just mentioned the lizard orchids, but there is other evidence. I know that some are protected already, but the increased fines should be implemented as soon as possible. Can the noble Earl do something to implement some parts of the Act at once, even if the whole lot cannot be implemented?

My Lords, this has, indeed, been considered and, if we continue to have trouble with the two particular sections that are causing trouble at present, then we shall do what the noble Baroness has suggested.

My Lords, I should like to ask whether the Government have considered, as far as Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is concerned, their decision to suspend the gassing of badgers, which I am sure will be very widely welcomed? Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act will increase the protection given to badgers, and are the Government aware that it is extremely important that that should be brought into force to discourage farmers from taking action on their own behalf in the light of the Government's decision? In view of the widespread concern, can the noble Earl at least give the House an assurance that the Wildlife and Countryside Act Part I commencement orders will be laid before the Summer Recess?

My Lords, I gather that the question of the badgers is at the moment under consideration. So far as promising to do it before we actually rise for the Recess is concerned, I cannot do so, but I hope very much to have it done anyway before we come back again.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, no.

My Lords, arising out of that very unsatisfactory Answer, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government realise that the present world economic recession stems from the decision of the United States Government, when the Bretton Woods Agreement collapsed—as I predicted it would and the rejection of which I moved in another place—to demonetize the dollar which halved the French gold reserves, wiped out 4,200 million dollars of our own reserves and reduced the stock of international reserves from 600,000 million dollars to 300,000 million dollars? May I further ask whether they are aware that the only world statesman who foresaw this, and who consistently advocated a viable international monetary policy based on a gold exchange standard, was President De Gaulle? Finally, for how long do Her Majesty's Government mean to tag along, as their predecessors have done for the last 10 years—both Labour and Tory—in the wake of the economic policies of the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board which border on insanity, and which have already brought deep recession and unemployment to the United States and which are now doing the same to Western Europe?

My Lords, I think that one needs to distinguish in one's mind between what may have been the merits or demerits of going off the gold standard many years ago and going back on it again now. Whatever may have been the position in former times, I think that the difficulties of going back to a fixed price for gold, for example, now are very formidable indeed and not to be lightly dismissed. There have recently been a number of inquiries into the possibility, not least one by the United States Gold Commission, which the noble Lord may have seen, and clearly the arguments are still very sharply against going back onto the gold standard.

My Lords, will my noble friend read the book that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, wrote about 25 years ago? There may be some enlightening point in it which would be worth reviving.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is, of course, a great expert in these matters, and has consistently advanced the view which is reflected in his Question today. But I must say that circumstances in regard to the international monetary system are now very different indeed from those of 50 or even 25 years ago. I think that the new approach towards a multi-currency international reserves system is better.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, in fact, the Bretton Woods conference succeeded in giving the Western world relative economic stability for a quarter of a century? Whatever the merits or demerits of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby—and I agree with many of his arguments—does the Minister not agree that it is now advisable, indeed imperative, for Her Majesty's Government to make the initiative in stimulating a similar international conference with a view to giving the Western world some element of stability, which it has certainly not enjoyed for the last few years and which it does not seem likely to enjoy over the next few?

My Lords, it is true that the Bretton Woods system served quite well, perhaps rather than very well, from 1944, when I think it was first established, to 1971 or thereabouts, when it was discontinued. The matter, of course, arises at conferences of every kind from time to time, as it did not least at the Versailles Summit quite recently, when the heads of state addressed their minds to this matter and made some reference to it in the communiqué. But the fact remains that circumstances have changed very much since 1944 and we need to move forward. I think that the approach of the IMF and the development of the special drawing rights—in other words, a general approach towards a multi-currency system of international reserves—is much better suited to the second half of the 20th century.

My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to ask him one final, very brief question. It is simply this. The world can never get out of the recession in which it now is without a viable international monetary system of some kind. How does the noble Lord propose to get out of it in the absence of any international monetary system? We have none today.

My Lords, I do not think that it is in the gift of any single nation—even the United States—to take one single step that will lift us all out of the international recession. We need a steady and steadfast—if that is the right word—economic policy by all the major trading nations of the world, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Federal Germany and the rest, so that together we can improve the trading situation of the world. As regards the United Kingdom, that is what we are seeking to do.

My Lords, with what we have not got.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Transport Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period, and during that adjournment the Report stage of the Forfeiture Bill will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is clearly seeking to make a case for removing NBC's National Express network from the ambit of this Bill. In the Government's view, that would be to miss a great opportunity. National Express has had very considerable success since this Government's Transport Act 1980 removed all licensing controls on express coach services. Passenger carryings in 1981 were 50 per cent. up on the previous year, and the financial performance of the business also improved, though by a lesser amount. I am glad to pay tribute to that success. It is surely a happy commentary on the results of the Act, although as I seem to recall that part of it was strongly opposed by noble Lords opposite.

The question facing us now is, how do we help NBC to build on that success? We need to bear in mind that National Express is, or ought to be, a fully commercial concern—I believe there is no difference between the parties in that respect. But, as we have heard, we also need to bear in mind that National Express currently makes a significant contribution to NBC's overall financial strength. I say significant, and indeed it is so. But we should not forget the relative figures: National Express accounted for less than 7 per cent. of NBC turnover in 1981, and although its contribution to long-run unavoidable costs was equivalent to about 20 per cent. of group working profit, it made only a modest profit of £318,000 on a fully allocated cost basis.

The Government believe that in the light of these considerations the right course is to allow National Express to build on its commercial success outside public sector financial constraints, while ensuring that NBC itself retains a significant financial and operational stake. Why should the taxpayer provide investment finance for this market-oriented enterprise when private investors could shoulder part of the burden?

Let us clearly understand the position. First, National Express is only a small part of NBC's total business. Second, the Government are not proposing to close it down but to allow it to expand outside public sector constraints. Third, NBC itself need be no worse off and could be better off after privatisation. Fourth, where operational links between express and state services make economic sense to both sides they will continue after privatisation.

The truth is that the Government's plans offer a major opportunity for developing a successful coach business in order to serve the market better. NBC would have an important share in that success, leaving them, in the Government's view, better off on balance than they are now. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, tabled this amendment to allow us an opportunity to discuss what is an important part of the proposals in this Bill. We have had this opportunity. The noble Lord has made his position clear. I am sure he knows the Government's position equally clearly. I hope in those circumstances he will withdraw this amendment and let us get on with the other parts of the Bill.

Is the noble Minister aware that what he has said with regard to the National Express Company, which still plays a vital role within the National Bus Company, is true? It is equally true, as he said, that the Bill introduced by the present Government some time ago seemed to improve the situation. It is of course remarkable that a Tory Government should go out of its way to help a publicly-owned industry. That is to be applauded.

The noble Minister spoke in terms of an increase in business of around 45 per cent. to 50 per cent., and we would all applaud this. We would applaud it irrespective of who is responsible. But now we come to the major issue at stake. What is at stake is that it is publicly owned. There are no private regiments, or private bits of the RAF. We would not stand for that. We would not expect them to increase their productivity by 50 per cent. by bombing, invading, or carrying on in a dastardly way somewhere, so the Government cannot have it all ways.

I am asking the noble Minister to consider this: here we have a part of the National Bus Company which is making good headway. We all know that if it makes good headway it is good for the country and it is good for the taxpayer. Equally, we know that those who invest their money will not be doing it primarily for the good of the nation, or that will not be the driving force behind what they are doing. The driving force will be for them to make money out of the National Express Company, built up by public funds, improved on by all in the name of the British public. The National Express Company is moving from success to success. I appeal to the Government to let it alone for a while, for it to prove itself. If we are found to be wrong in our submission, the Government in due course can explain that all we had expected had not transpired, and the clause can be introduced at that time.

I also find myself falling between two stools, between the amendment and my noble friend's answer. I appreciate the Minister's answer on economic and perhaps political grounds, but the National Bus Company has been going for many years and has built up the coaching side as an integral part of the business. My noble friend replies that the coaching side should be given over because it would be unfair for the taxpayer to have to subsidise industries which should be commercial concerns. Very well, but there are a few practical matters we should bear in mind. One is the availability of crews working unsocial hours. At present we are suffering unemployment and the amount of lost mileage due to lack of crews is very little compared with what it was a decade or two ago. We can look forward, we hope, to the future with a fuller employment situation, and then one of the first industries to suffer will be service industries such as this which involve working unsocial hours, as must be the case with buses. The coach industries, either private or public, will be all right; there will be plenty of people to work in those because a certain glamour attaches to them.

What worries me—again I fall between the two arguments—is that we shall again have the situation in which there will be a lack of people wishing to drive stage carriage vehicles for the use of people who use public transport for essential journeys. One can see that happening, and I hope my noble friend will refer to that, as he will be aware of my concern in the matter. I should also like to know whether, although the Bill gives powers only for National Express to be sold off, the National Bus Company would be allowed to start another coaching enterprise on their own. Is there anything in the Bill to prevent them from doing that?

We are in many ways moving away from the basic reasons behind what is proposed in this part of the Bill. I hear what my noble friend Lord Teviot says, and he knows that whenever he speaks on practical matters, not only affecting those who drive and the vehicles involved, I want to know his views because of his expert knowledge. Nevertheless, we need to get hack to the basics on this, which brings us to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and it might help if I re-stated the position. The amendment ignores the fact that NBC would retain a significant shareholding; secondly, it ignores the potential for improving profitability which could come with wider access to investment capital; thirdly, it ignores the proceeds of sale which would flow to NBC as one of their sources of external finance; and fourthly, it ignores NBC's continued involvement at the operational level in supplying National Express with marginal capacity, engineering and maintenance services, all of which will be paid for at the proper commercial rate.

I understand exactly the point which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, makes, but, in the end, I suppose we return to a philosophical difference of view, and that is not to discard what the noble Lord says, any more than what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, says. The Government have taken the view that this is the best direction for them to go. They took the same view when we were talking about the 1980 Act—that we should open up the whole field; and I say that not to crow about the point, but because everyone is pleased if something happens for the national good, as Lord Molloy said, regardless of who brings it about. In the way in which that pointed us in a direction, it is not unreasonable to claim that we got that one right. I think we have this one right as well, for the reasons I have given, but only time will tell. One hopes there will be extra profitability; and if it is done through the private sector, so be it. At the end of the day we are most concerned to discover whether this is the best way to proceed. We believe it is, and that is why we take the view we do of the amendment.

I have tried hard to follow the Minister's logic. I am usually able to do so, even if I find myself disagreeing with his principles. I do not find his logic on this occasion as strong as it usually is. If the Government were saying that NBC would retain a 51 per cent., controlling, interest in National Express coach services—if they were willing to say, "We give that undertaking to the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot"—I could follow that. I would then understand that the public is being asked—I am using the Minister's words—to shoulder the responsibility of finance, instead of it being left purely to the Government, and that as a result of that, financial policy would be controlled on behalf of the nation. One would then be able to see to it that employees were retained and old traditions, built up over the years, dealing with, for example, unsocial hours (I almost wondered whether we were going to get into a debate on flexible rostering, but thank goodness! we did not) were maintained, even in days, for which we all hope, of fuller employment.

We have no such assurance and the Minister's logic therefore falls to the ground. I am hoping that, possibly as a result of this debate and his own reasoning, the Minister will be forthcoming—I shall not anticipate the argument on Amendment No. 2—and will say, "In regard to National Express coach services, the intention of the Government (and we have no objection to writing this in the Bill) is that there will be control of them in future". In those circumstances, while I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Underhill, I think that those responsible for the amendment would be prepared to think again. But if the Minister is not prepared to write that into the Bill, I am afraid that his speech, clear though it was, did not convince me and, I hope, will not convince the Committee.

It will not be the first time I have failed to convince the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I suspect it will not be the last. I am sorry he feels there is no logical basis for my argument. To me it seemed clear enough, and still does. I omitted to answer a point made by my noble friend Lord Teviot. It is part of the whole matter. The point about NBC setting up a new coach company was mentioned. There would be no legal restriction on that, but surely in effect that would mean that NBC would be cutting off its nose to spite its face. The Government's intention is that NBC should remain committed to National Express through the retention of a significant shareholding. Well—

I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord the Minister, and I am most grateful to him for allowing me to do so. In a matter so important as this will he please not leave hanging in the air vague terms such as "significant"? What does he mean by "significant"? Is it significant from the point of view of control, or of voting power, or is it significant for some other reason?

If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I would point that, as he rightly said, Amendment No. 2 takes up the whole matter of the percentages of shareholding, and I should prefer to deal with the question at that time. He asks, "What is significant"? It depends on different circumstances and different situations. In certain circumstances 1 per cent. can be very significant but the noble Lord knows, as others know, that in this instance that is not so. I do not want to go into detail at this stage. I am sorry if I do not satisfy the noble Lord on the point, but we shall be talking about it in a moment, and I should prefer to discuss it under Amendment No. 2. I am sorry that I cannot add much more. Clearly the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, knows that the Government are not in a position to accept the amendment, and I fear that I cannot go further than that.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, winds up, I should like to refer to one point which perhaps has not been mentioned. My noble friend has mentioned that NBC will have 51 per cent. Well, that is fine, but it should be stated that at the moment very good arrangements are working between NBC and private companies. For instance, Eastern National and Eastern Counties have an arrangement with, I believe, George Ewer (Grey Green), and with the West Midlands and three other companies. They all work very well at the moment. Perhaps one is not thinking as widely as one might, but one cannot yet see the point of what is proposed. I shall not vote against the Government, but I shall not be able to vote with them if the matter goes to a Division.

I am very sorry that the noble Lord the Minister has not replied to the question of my noble friend Lord Mishcon about the 51 per cent. Obviously, that is a point which is worrying the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. This is a very important question, and we shall be dealing with it in Amendment No. 2. This question will have considerable effect on what the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, referred to as the great opportunity that we might miss if we do not agree with the Government's proposals to transfer National Express from the National Bus Company. The Minister referred to the 1980 Act, but our most important questions regarding the Act were about the possible effect on stage carriage services. Whatever else has happened, following the 1980 Act and deregulation, to help National Express coaches, certainly there has been no improvement in terms of the great mass of private operators wishing to go into the stage carriage services. That simply has not happened. The Minister has not answered the quite clear statements that were made about the integrated nature of NBC, including the National Express coach services. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, from his practical experience, was able to join in the discussion on this question, because the flexible use of coaches and crews is a vital part of the integrated nature of the National Bus Company.

I questioned what would be the assets to be sold. We should not talk about the sale of depots and maintenance and repair facilities, because the National Bus Company will still want them for the stage carriage services. Moreover, under Clause 4 the National Bus Company will be able to provide for firms such as the National Express, when it is sold off, to have facilities at the National Bus Company's own properties. Therefore, there is no question of any money coming from the sale of assets; it could come only from a commercial arrangement for the use of existing facilities.

If the Government's intention is to help the development of the National Bus Company, I submit that in fact it will not be helped because of the taking away of an integrated part of 'the NBC. I ask the question: why are the Government restricting disposal to National Express and National Holidays and their properties? The Government are not lifting one finger to help the development of the essential stage carriage services of the National Bus Company through its operating companies. That will be left to be dealt with by the transport supplementary grant through assistance from the counties.

There is no commercial consideration here—not political, but commercial. This lack of commercial consideration cannot possibly help the development of the coach services or the integrated nature of the bus company. What the Government propose will hinder and harm the present integrated nature of the National Bus Company's services. There will also be an effect, or the possibility of an effect, on the operating subsidiaries as well as on the stage carriage services. For all those reasons I must ask the Committee to divide on this important issue.

moved Amendment No. 2:

If an NBC subsidiary is to escape the constraints of the public sector and attract genuine risk capital, then the bus company must relinquish effective control. This was made clear during our Second Reading debate. The amendment we are considering would prevent NBC disposing of more than 49 per cent. of its interest in a subsidiary. The bus company would therefore retain effective control, and the whole purpose of the Government's policy would be defeated. None of the advantages of access to private finance would be available to the business.

We envisage NBC retaining a significant (and I shall come back to that word in a moment) minority interest in a subsidiary in which private capital is invested. This interest would provide the company with a continued source of income over and above that from the initial sale of shares. It is not possible to specify now the exact level of NCB's retained interest, and let me try to explain why. This will depend on the particular circumstances of the disposition of the shareholding and, of course, on City advice at the time of sale. Before allowing access to private finance we should, however, wish to be satisfied that effective control lay in private hands.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pressed me to give a firmer definition of "significant". If I were to give a complete answer I would need to be a lexicographer, I think, and not a politician. But the essential is, as I have tried to explain, control. The new National Express will have to be under private control if we are to accept that its finances are genuinely outside the scope of an implied public sector control. To comply with this condition, NBC shares will have to be less than 50 per cent.—and how much less, I cannot say; it will depend on the make-up of the remaining shareholding; and 49 per cent. could be a non-controlling interest if all other shares are in a single pair of hands. It could be a controlling interest if there are several other shareholders.

I hope that gives some explanation of why I am reluctant to be more categorical in trying to define "significant". It is something which moves in the context of the particular matter being discussed at the time. I am sorry to sound vague but I think it is not unreasonable to say that a "significant" shareholding depends very much on how many, in whose hands, and what is the situation applying at the time. As with the first amendment, we come back to a fundamental difference between us on whether this National Express should be within or without NBC. If there is 51 per cent. there, it would stay within; not without. It comes down to a difference between us. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful with the amendment.

The noble Lord the Minister is quite entitled to put forward an argument that control should go into private hands and out of NBC. It is a perfectly proper and clear argument to put politically. You either hold that view or you do not. There is no point in wasting a lot of time in Committee stage debating that issue. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by conducting any such argument. There is, however, another argument which says that it may well be that control ought to go out, and therefore the Committee ought not to agree with an amendment which proposes that 51 per cent. be retained by NBC in the case of any of its subsidiaries. But on both sides of the Committee, indeed in all parts of the Committee—although I look at the Cross-Benches and find I am looking merely at benches, so that perhaps I should limit myself to speaking of both sides of the Committee—the view is that control ought to be in private hands but there ought to be residual rights always vested in NBC in order that certain situations can be controlled. If your Lordships had heard from the noble Lord the Minister a rather more cogent definition of "significant" this would not have required him to be a lexicographer at all but would merely require him (and I say this with affection) to be a frank politician, and that is all; and that is all that we ask for.

What I mean is this. The possibility of shares going into wrong hands is not something that one can control on an original transaction, because on the original transaction the shares can go into very proper hands. It is a question of what happens thereafter. Your Lordships will remember that in the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, for example, we were dealing with an important matter from the point of view of the nation; but there was always a provision written in that there should be, until the Secretary of State otherwise decided, the holding of a special share which stopped the transfer of shares in undesirable circumstances.

No such protection is given to vital transport interests that we are dealing with in this Bill. It is a matter of company law (with which I am sure your Lordships will be quite familiar) that if you manage to hold 75 per cent. of voting control you can actually put the company into liquidation and sell off vital assets; and it may well be that from a pecuniary point of view, from the material point of view, that is a very profitable thing for shareholders to do. It is not a profitable thing for the nation to do. Unless one retains more than 25 per cent. of the shares, one cannot stop a liquidation. If one controls more than 75 per cent. one could alter the whole structure of the constitution of a company, which is in its memorandum and articles of association.

The Committee is left in this position. The Minister is not prepared to say what percentage will be retained in the national interest. He uses the word "significant", and he realises that it means nothing when you say "significant" in regard to each set of circumstances. That is a reply that, if I may say so, means nothing. We are dealing now with an important Bill and an important clause of the Bill. The Minister should be prepared to say that "significant" at least means that one is going to have some sort of control. I have gone away from directors; my noble friend Lord Underhill made that point and I do not want to repeat it.

If you take the view that the nation should have no control on the question of liquidation, no control in regard to altering the articles of association, no control by having a clause inserted in the articles that at least the nation will keep such a share as will prevent other shares going into wrong hands; if you continue with that, you will vote against the amendment. If you want to retain the principle even though the amendment talks in terms of 51 per cent., then in my judgment you will vote for the amendment.

Can the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, help me in this? If one accepts his amendment, one would (as the Minister explained) restrict the company from doing some of the things it wants to do. One would also go against the general philosophy outlined in this Part of the Bill. If one accepted the amendment, one would also restrict some of the opportunities that might arise for the bus company. I think it would be wrong to do that at this stage. In some of our very big cities, there are some suggestions that the social service aspect of bus operations should fall back to them. There are other suggestions from such as Sir Peter Masefield, that it should move to something of a regional set-up. If one accepts the amendment, one would not be able to do this at all. Then, I think one would negative what we are trying to do: that is, to create greater opportunities for decentralised authority so that private enterprise, private money, can come in as and where it wants—and it will not come in if it has not got control.

It would at the same time draw attention to the need for those local authorities who see a social need to make such provision as they are able to because currently, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has suggested, it is the cross-subsidisation alone that keeps some of the social services operating. That subsidisation is necessary because a great number of the local authorities say, "We are not going to put our hands in our pockets; we are going to spend our money on schools or something else". This is a burden which I do not think that the bus company should necessarily carry. You will force them into carrying that burden if you insist on the amendment.

May I say that of course agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he says that it would be a waste of time to enter into any political debate on this matter. I should like to pursue with him, if I may, the theme that he developed that control ought to go out of the hands of NBC. He pursued that theme very fairly and frankly with his usual persuasiveness. Then he comes to the general theme. The general proposition he puts to us is that his basic reason for this amendment, and for his general attitude in supporting this amendment, is that there is a possibility of shares going into wrong hands.

I agree with him about the 25 per cent. position, about the effect if you do not retain more than 25 per cent. of the shareholding, because then certain matters follow in accordance with company law. What I find difficult to appreciate in the context of this Bill and what the Government are trying to do—and I approach this in an entirely pragmatic way—are the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, sees. What does he mean in practice about the shares getting into wrong hands in the context of this matter? I understand that the Government are to retain a significant number of shares and I agree that the Government are unlikely to disclose the figure that they have in mind, if they have one in mind. What I feel the noble Lord fails to do in his persuasive submissions to this Committee is explain the real problem that he is trying to prevent taking place. What are the wrong hands which he anticipates may be involved if the Government do not relinquish the control of NBC as suggested?

I have been asked a question—with the customary courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd—and therefore I ought to answer it. It is not unknown in commercial circles—and the noble Lord has mixed in them with great advantage to those commercial circles —for a company to be acquired in order to stifle competition. I give but one example. It is not unknown that shareholders come into a company dealing with transport in the hope of making very large gains and as a result of it possibly putting prices up in a way which is not suitable for a company in which the nation holds shares. It could very well be that shareholders have the desire when getting into a company—and I mention this example—to see that its assets are sold because a quick profit could be made as a result, although that is not in the national interest. I do not think that I need go any further with examples, but I could do so.

My Lords, the Secretary of State's consent is required to the initial disposal of shares, and to control subsequent transactions surely would be an unwarranted interference. The fact is that the Secretary of State will always have control over any further disposals by NBC. That is a safeguard. I want to be helpful in this matter. If I were pressed to say and give an indication, then clearly it would mean less than 51 per cent. It would probably—but not essentially—be more than 20 per cent. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, makes is understood as well.

It is still right to come back to the first point, that when we talk about significance it can mean so many different things in so many different situations. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, knows this as well or better than anyone in the Committee, with his great experience in working in the company field. There, as he knows, anyone who owned, say 5 per cent. of ICI would have a very substantial holding. Five per cent. of another company would not mean anything like the same holding. That is why it is so difficult to be precise.

I am afraid I am not very much up into financial affairs. I should like an assurance from my noble friend. Regarding the 51 per cent., or whatever it was—and that has rather come out in the light of debate—it is a fact that no commercial concern in the foreseeable future is going to put a lot of money into the declining industry of stage carriage. Unfortunately, this country, unlike most of Europe—apart from one or two countries still has a declining number of people using public transport. The only people who are going to put money into public transport are those who think they can make a quick "buck" on coach services.

Moving on from that, is my noble friend able to give me an assurance that we are not going to see a situation whereby control has gone from the National Bus Company and somebody is going to make quite a lot of money on coach services? The local authorities are going to get bored with subsidising routes and the poor, wretched public are going to be standing at bus stops, either in urban areas or down the lanes of rural areas, and are not going to have an adequate bus service. I wish my noble friend could give me an absolute assurance that that kind of horrible situation will not happen.

I do not think that the two situations go hand in hand at all. The unhappy scenario that my noble friend paints for us is a situation tied up entirely with many, many other facets of this whole area of public transport: the local authorities' obligations; the extent to which there should be subsidy or not; how much the ratepayer contributes; how much the taxpayer contributes; what is the philosophy of public versus private cars, and so on? It is a problem that he rightly raises but, so far as I can see, it is not the one that we are discussing in dealing with this amendment. On that, we come back to the basic philosophy: either one agrees that there should be private control of this sector or not. The Government clearly do and noble Lords opposite clearly think otherwise.

The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, put some very pertinent points which are the most important points for supporting the amendment before the Committee. Although the Minister, as usual was very persuasive in his argument, frankly he in effect admitted the case. There is no answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, once you say that the whole control of any subsidiary will pass from the public sector into a private company over which the National Bus Company will not have continued effective control at all. That will mean that nobody will put money—as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot into a private transport undertaking merely to help social transport. They will put it in because they want to get some returns. They want to get profit.

Therefore, if it is a question of continuing with unprofitable routes, we know what is going to happen. We shall come to this issue on another amendment, and if it is a question of impairing the transport for the travelling public or making a loss, we know what a private transport undertaking will do. We are not attacking private capital but in this respect we are talking common sense about the issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that the Government are seeking to have decentralisation. If they sell the National Express as a complete undertaking—and I come back to my question: what are they going to sell in the case of National Express? What are the assets they are going to sell?—because 1 do not know—then that is not decentralisation. I have expressed a fear, and noble Lords on this side have also expressed a fear. Although the Government have said that their present intention is to confine disposals to National Express, National Holidays and the properties, the fact is that the powers of disposal could enable this Government, or any future Government, to dispose of any of the operating subsidiaries. That could happen and it is in the Bill. If there is no control continued by the National Bus Company, then it is clear that there will be an impairment of service to the travelling public. That is why it is so essential to maintain the majority control not from political philisophy, but for the welfare of the travelling public. It is such an important principle that, even on this issue, we must also ask the Committee to make its views quite clear in a Division.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 11, leave out ("(1)(a)") and insert ("(1)").

This amendment seeks to extend the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent to disposals of assets under subsection (1)(b) as well as to the sale of shares under subsection (1)(a). There is a good reason for confining the consent provision to subsection (1)(a). The National Bus Company may already dispose of those parts of its subsidiaries' undertakings which are no longer required for the business—for example, old buses, or land, or buildings surplus to operational needs. Such disposals are the subject of day-to-day management decisions in which the Secretary of State is not involved. The power under which such disposals are carried out is conferred by Section 14(1)(e) of the Transport Act 1962, applied to the National Bus Company by Section 47(1)(a)(iv) of the Transport Act 1968. We do not wish to interfere in any way with the National Bus Company's existing power of disposal where parts of a subsidiary's undertaking are no longer required for the purpose of the business. But extending the power of consent as proposed in the amendment would do just that. It could give rise to an area of doubt as to whether the National Bus Company was carrying out a particular disposal by virtue of the power conferred by the 1962 Act or the power conferred by subsection (1)(b) of this Bill. The National Bus Company might well feel obliged, for the avoidance of such doubt, to ask for approval for each and every disposal. We could end up in the thoroughly unsatisfactory situation of Ministers being involved quite unnecessarily in detailed management decisions.

I do not think that the kind of situation which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, envisages is a credible proposition. There would have to be some really exceptional circumstances for the National Bus Company board to wish to dispose of the complete undertaking—say, for example, of one of its regional operating subsidiaries—without getting any shares. I am sure that the kind of circumstances which the noble Lord has outlined to us and which concern him would be—surely this is the key to it—the subject of consultations with the Secretary of State before a final decision was taken one way or the other.

I really do not think that the concern which the noble Lord has expressed need worry him as much as it does. The undertakings of the National Bus Company are subsidiaries and, as such, they are Companies Act companies. It is not possible to sell a company without selling the shares in it, so it is difficult to see how the National Bus Company could dispose of an entire undertaking without consent. For these reasons we feel unable to accept the amendment.

I hope I heard the noble Lord the Minister aright when he guided the Committee along the lines that if you sell all the assets of an undertaking, of necessity you sell the shares and, in such an event, will have to obtain the permission of the Secretary of State. I did not think I could have heard him aright, although the noble Lord the Minister nods his head in assent, which means that I ought now to believe that I did hear him aright. And, having believed that I did hear him aright, I find myself unable to believe the advice he has received. It is quite possible to sell the goodwill of a business as part of the undertaking. It is quite possible to sell the assets of a business without selling any shares at all, Indeed, the average alternative facing a commercial enterprise which is for disposal is that either you sell some of the assets or all of the assets, or you decide to sell the shares and somebody takes over the whole of the company. Therefore, I should be obliged if the noble Lord the Minister would, with his advisers, think again about that statement.

I must have been nodding my head in the wrong place. Perhaps it would help if I repeated what I said in order to clarify the point which the noble Lord mentions. I said that the National Bus Company's undertakings are subsidiaries and, as such, are Companies Act companies. I said it is not possible to sell a company without selling the shares in it. So it is difficult to see how the National Bus Company could dispose of an entire undertaking without consent. But of course one can always sell assets and one can always sell parts. That, clearly, I know.

I do not think the Committee will be very patient with me if I continue this argument for much longer. Of course it is possible to sell an undertaking, or all the assets, without selling shares. What I am saying is that if one does do that, it comes within paragraph (b) and not within paragraph (a). That proposition is either right or wrong. If it is wrong, then I will apologise to the Committee hereafter. If it is right, I expect the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to withdraw the statement he has made.

I will detain the Committee only very briefly because I do not want to repeat arguments that have been put forward so ably by my noble friend Lord Underhill. I would like to add only this. If the noble Lord the Minister is saying to the Committee that it is quite ridiculous—and this was the point taken in another place at Committee stage—to think in terms of the National Bus Company having to seek the permission of the Secretary of State when it was merely selling a few of its assets, which for all one knows it might be doing week by week or month by month, then I would go along with that argument. But we are dealing with a clause concerned with the whole of an undertaking or part of it, and it is a little odd that, presumably, the National Bus Company will not be able to sell one of its shares in any subsidiary—just one—without going to the Secretary of State, but yet could sell the whole of an undertaking of a subsidiary without going anywhere near the Secretary of State.

In endeavouring to borrow the inimitable language of the Minister, I will suggest to him that if he will undertake to look at an amendment between now and Report stage which deals with the whole, not just a part, or—borrowing his language—a significant part of the undertaking or assets of the subsidiary, then I would be perfectly content with his definition of "significant", which is that it varies from case to case and will have to be considered on its merits; I believe that was the way he defined "significant I would be perfectly prepared to think in terms of a material part as well as the whole, and I am sure that my noble friend will agree with me that if we have an undertaking of that kind, which gave some sort of protection with with regard to the subsidiaries, and that there is need to have the Secretary of State's permission, we would both think very differently about pressing this amendment.

The decision to press this amendment is in the hands of the noble Lord who moved the amendment. What I will undertake to do is read carefully what has been said. I understand it clearly in my own mind and that it is as I have explained it: that the fears should not exist. However, because we are now in a field of the kind we are, I will of course take this point away and talk to advisers and colleagues about it. Should it be that the points are valid, then noble Lords know what we will do. If we do not feel the points are valid then it is always open to your Lordships to decide what to do about it at a later stage.

I am obliged to the noble Lord the Minister for agreeing to take a look at this in the light of our debate. Similarly, we on this side will take a careful look at the debate to see whether we should bring forward a differently worded amendment, if the Government themselves do not bring forward an amendment. May I deal with one other point, because the Minister agreed that there could be exceptional circumstances but in such a case there would be consultation with the Minister. But, again, we are dealing with the words in the Bill. Not necessarily this Government but another Government could be even more determined than the present Government to smash all question of public ownership.

Impossible.

They could be, and therefore we may be in a position of facing "exceptional circumstances" and yet no consent of the Secretary of State is required. That is what concerns us. If there is consent by the Secretary of State for the sale of any part of the shares then we believe there ought to be consent of the Secretary of State for disposal elsewhere, although we accept the point that it is not wanted for the disposal of an odd bus here and there. Since the Minister is going to take a look at this, as we are, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

In order to hurry up the Committee I will come in now, so that my noble friend can answer both the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and myself. I am in sympathy with the amendment because one point has not been mentioned. We have discussed political differences between private and public, but there is a difference concerning public transport which does not concern many other things. We have debated the question of the National Health Service; we have debated whether one should pay more for National Health Service spectacles or whether there should be no such spectacles. If National Health Service spectacles were withdrawn, people would simply have to pay for them—but if a public bus service is withdrawn, one cannot pay for something that is not there.

Coming back to the freedom of the individual, which again I think is absolutely right, public transport is a need for some people, because the alternative is private transport and you cannot expect everybody to be the owner of a vehicle; he or she has to have a licence to drive it, and might not be suitable to have a licence, or might be of a nervous disposition, or too young or too old. Also, if they are not able to own their own vehicle they cannot all be expected to pay for their own chauffeur, and they cannot be expected to be dependent on a relative or another person to transport them. We are moving into a very difficult area. Although the wording of the noble Lord's amendment might not suit the draftsmen in many ways, I do agree with the principle. We have to protect people who are not able to have their own transport.

The Government have no doubt that their policy of introducing private capital will be of benefit, both to NBC and to the travelling public. It has never been our contention that each and every one of NBC's subsidiaries, of which there are more than 35, will necessarily be better off; there are bound to be some winners and some losers within the overall improvement that the Government expect to see. We are opposed to this amendment because it could give rise to technical challenges intended to frustrate the policy approved by Parliament in this Bill. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that, under Clause 1, it is in fact the NBC who are being given the power of disposal. They will be responsible for putting forward schemes for the introduction of private capital. It seems to me in the highest degree unlikely that they will propose a course of action which they believe to be against the interests of the company. Equally, if it came to the point where NBC were proceeding under a direction from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State would clearly have already reached a judgment about the best interests of the company, its subsidiaries and the travelling public. So I think the amendment is in large measure unnecessary, quite apart from the fact that it has a potential for being destructive.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was arguing that it was somehow the NBC's intention in running National Express to run a social service. I would have to say on that, that under both Labour and Conservative Governments NBC has been clear that National Express is to be run as a purely commercial business. The Government's plans for introducing the private shareholding would hardly be revolutionary in that respect. It is really a question of deciding what are the objectives and how far will they be achieved. For the reasons I have given, I think what this amendment is seeking to do would make very difficult in practical terms the kind of achievement that we are talking about.

Again, with the Committee's permission, I shall try to put the issue before the Committee as I see it, especially, if I may say so, with the help of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the introduction of this amendment by my noble friend Lord Underhill. Under Clause 3 of this Bill, the Secretary of State can give directions to the National Bus Company requiring it to use its powers under the section we are now considering. Secretaries of State are very powerful people, but there is an even more powerful instrument within our Government and that is the Treasury.

It could very well be that, if we were ever faced with an even greater drive for economies, the Treasury could give instructions to the various departments that those economies were to be effected; if I may use a coarse phrase which is known in the marketplace, the cash flow of the Government had better be improved by the sale of assets and by the sale of shares. Without any safeguard in this Bill, the Secretary of State under such pressure could give such a direction without having in view at all the various considerations that were put forward, if I may say so without seeming patronising, so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. And the whole question of social travel, the whole question of the needs of individual citizens who either cannot afford their own transport or for one reason or another have not the ability to hold a licence would be very drastically and most unfortunately affected.

I repeat what my noble friend said: there is no question of politics being in this at all. We are obviously admitting the general principle of the Bill, as we have to. But is it right that in this Bill there is absolutely no safeguard, and we are going to leave it at that—that the Secretary of State, when giving such a direction, when using his powers, does not have to take into account the matters mentioned in this amendment, which are absolutely innocuous and would, I am sure, in any event command the support of all your Lordships. Is it right that we should do that?

I ought to mention this, as a matter of law, as I understand it. If the Secretary of State is in fact satisfied, then it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to upset any of his decisions by way of a judicial review. So there is no question, in my judgment, of his having some difficulty to face in regard to the law courts if anybody wanted to challenge the decision he had made. He has to be satisfied in his own mind that these, from the point of view of the public, vital matters are covered. I repeat, it is not a question, as the Minister has said, of the Secretary of State being in charge of transport and therefore wanting so badly to protect all the interests of transport and the public. It is a question of the Secretary of State, possibly not the strong one I am sure the noble Lord thinks we have at the moment, but a weak one hereafter, giving in to Treasury persuasion, or even something stronger than persuasion. That is what we have to safeguard against, and it is done by the amendment. I hope your Lordships will feel that it is a proper amendment to support. Or, rather, I hope the noble Lord the Minister on reconsideration of these arguments will say that he would like to consider the matter very seriously before turning this safeguard down.

I fear that in this case I cannot agree to do that. I think what I said, although not at great length, fairly expressed the position as we see it. It looks as if this is one on which we shall have to differ.

I am sorry the Minister has taken that view on behalf of the Government. He did say that to accept this amendment would leave the way open to possible technical challenges to frustrate the will of Parliament. That is not the intention of the amendment. I am sure it must be the will of Parliament that all the points set out in this amendment shall be observed by the Secretary of State before he gives consent to any disposal. I am sure everybody agrees that this is what should be done, and surely what we ought to do is to put those safeguards in the Bill. That is all the amendment is seeking to do.

In the light of what the Minister has said, we will have a look at this. We will not seek to divide the Committee on this issue, but we may have to come back to it on Report, because, frankly, if these provisos are not to be observed in relation to any disposal, then the whole question of disposal should be up for consideration again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I apologise for raising very briefly a technical point on which I may very well be wrong, but I do not want the clause to be passed by the Committee without its being drawn to the attention of the Committee or of the Minister to whom I have given short notice of the point. I see that the next amendment seeks to insert "Bus" before "Company" in Clause 3. I have noticed that in this clause—and I am looking at line 5 on page2—we again get "the Company", and indeed we get it again in Clause 2 at line 33. I see no reference—and here I apologise to the Committee if I have omitted to see something—to anything in the Bill which defines "the Company" as against "the Bus Company". I hope that I am not raising a false point.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who did give me an intimation that he wished to raise this point, and it enables me to try to clarify the position. Let me first say, however, that I do not think we need dwell too long on the amendment. It simply corrects an earlier slip of the drafting by changing "Company" to "Bus Company". The latter is the term used throughout the rest of Part I for the National Bus Company and is defined in Clause 7.

When the National Bus Company is first referred to in a subsection it is necessary to refer to it as "the Bus Company" in accordance with the definition in Clause 7. Subsequent references in the same subsection to "the Company" must be references to the company already mentioned; namely, "the Bus Company". That is the explanation given to me. I hope that it is satisfactory so far as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is concerned. However, I assure him that, in moving the amendment—which I shall do—I shall certainly talk about the matter again. If it should be that there is uncertainty in any way then I shall certainly want to do something about it.

Only out of sheer amusement do I refer the Committee and the Minister to Clause 3, where the amendment is due to take place. The noble Lord will see that "the Bus Company" is mentioned in that clause even through it starts off with a reference to "the Bus Company". In other words, we do not get "the Company". The explanation is at least not consistent, but I would not dream of spending any more time on it.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 3, line 33, at end insert ("Bus").

moved Amendment No. 6:

We have already made it known that we see the power of direction conferred on the Secretary of State by Clause 3 of the Bill as a reserve power. It is our object to see agreement between the Government and the National Bus Company over the introduction of private capital. All the signs are that this is possible on the basis of progress made so far. It may be that we shall have some differences with the company along the way. It would be naive of us to expect none. However, I hope that mutually acceptable solutions will be found.

As I have already said, we believe that there are positive benefits to be gained from private investment in NBC, both for the company and the travelling public. But in the last analysis the Government's policy is guided by their perception of the wider public interest. So it has been decided to include a power of direction in the Bill to carry the policy through should there be an irreconcilable difference between ourselves and the company.

The taking of a power of direction by the Secretary of State over a nationalised industry is hardly a novel departure. There are many examples of such powers in the statutes. However, what is proposed in this amendment would, indeed, be novel—certainly as far as the nationalised transport industries are concerned. It would require the Secretary of State to secure an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament before any direction he might give to the bus company would come into effect. This is at odds with the principle that Ministers are entrusted with the responsibility for the nationalised industries which they sponsor. They are, of course, answerable to the House for the way in which they exercise their responsibility.

It does not seem to me to make sense to separate off one piece of this responsibility—such as a direction issued under Clause 3 of this Bill—and make it subject to a specific resolution of the House. I repeat, that there are many other ministerial powers of direction in relation to the nationalised industries, all of which may be exercised without reference back to Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will see the force of this argument and not press his amendment.

I should like to support this amendment. The Minister gave as his defence for the Government's proposal for the negative procedure for orders, that orders for nationalised industries had always been subject to the negative procedure. That is quite true. But this is the first time that there has been a new amalgam between private and nationalised industries and I would submit to the Minister that we should seriously consider the power that we are giving to Parliament by the proposal to have the negative procedure. It raises the big issue of the power of the executive against the power of Parliament--the power of the executive under circumstances which have not been cited before. This is what I term this new amalgam.

If I may have the Minister's attention, we have heard much this afternoon about the great powers which the Minister can exercise, which will have an effect on many private enterprises in which the Government are a minority partner. It is quite true that the Minister will have the requirement to consult the various bodies cited in this clause. But the fact is that, whether or not he consults—and I am sure he will if he is told to by Parliament—the final power rests with the Minister. We are virtually giving him a blank cheque on this.

Many noble Lords have been in another place, as I have, and we know full well that there is an affirmative procedure and there is a negative procedure; in ordinary slang you can say that the negative procedure is, in fact, to pass something on the nod, because when an order is questioned under the negative procedure it comes on late at night after other business, when both Members and Ministers are tired, and it is virtually a non-existent safeguard. However, the affirmative procedure is a very definite safeguard for Parliament's rights over matters which will affect the welfare of many citizens, both in employment and in their daily lives. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will not treat this as something coming under the umbrella of previous cases of nationalised industries, but will accept that this is something new and different and. therefore, will think again as to whether they should push Parliament in the corner and do what they want by order.

I should like to echo in this Chamber every word of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. It is worse than the noble Lord thinks. I stand to be corrected, but, as I understand it, not even the negative procedure is provided for under this Bill. This is a case, not of the new amalgam, as was mentioned a moment ago by the noble Lord, but a question of the new despotism.

I was endeavouring to discount the value of safeguards in the negative procedure, whereas in the affirmative procedure Parliament can express its wish.

I am saying to the Committee that not even the negative procedure is provided for under this Bill. In other words, complete power is given to the Secretary of State not to come anywhere near Parliament in the following circumstances, to which I shall briefly allude.

This power is only of use under the Bill if the National Bus Company has decided that it does not wish to use the powers under Clause 1 or Clause 2; that is, it has decided that it does not wish to dispose of an undertaking, an asset or shares. Only then, of course, from a practical point of view, does this power to the Secretary of State come into existence at all. Therefore, what the noble Lord the Minister described—and I use his language—as a matter of the wider public interest is no longer a matter for the elected representatives in another place to discuss or for your Lordships to discuss in regard to the overall responsibilities of this House. It is a question purely and simply for the Secretary of State, and by a stroke of his pen he can order the National Bus Company to disregard what it thinks to be the wider public interest and to sell its assets, undertakings, or whatever it may be.

This is a complete negation of all that I believe your Lordships understand by the simple word "democracy". In those circumstances, I hope the Minister will realise what he is doing if he in fact tries to oppose this amendment.

I am very worried about this. I spent 10 to 13 years as a member of the Statutory Instruments Committee in another place, and I believe that the vital importance of a statutory instrument to democracy and to the Houses of Parliament is being overlooked. I see a gradual tendency to say "There is nothing to worry about; no Minister will do this, no Minister will do that, be he Labour, be he SDP or whatever newfangled political parties come into existence".

We have built up this kind of safeguard in statutory instruments over a century or two of trial and error, and it has proved effective. It is a safeguard for the public. The powers of Parliament are dwindling, and this is another example which has been slipped into the Bill bit by bit. I say this without any venomous or vicious political party point of view. It is highly necessary for all good people now to come to the rescue of democracy, because bit by bit we are seeing it being eaten away by the abolition of the safeguards of statutory instruments. I could make a long speech, but it would bore the Committee. I have made my point and it is crystal clear. We should vote against this, whatever the outcome may be.

We should vote for the amendment.

Yes.

If ever I have heard of a mountain being made out of a molehill, this really is it. I always delight in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, if only for his rhetoric, and he knows this. But we are going off at a total tangent. Who would have thought that here was something new, to quote the noble Lord, "being slipped into the Bill"—some sinister attempt to introduce a new "amalgam", as my noble friend called it—something new. There is a mass of precedent. It is most unfair to imply that here is something that is for the first time before us, some sinister new attempt—for what was it the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said?—"All good people come to the defence of democracy". I trust he was saying the same thing when the nationalisation measures were being brought in by his administration.

The fact is that this is absolutely normal procedure in regard to the extent to which Ministers have powers of direction in relation to the nationalised industries, all of which may he exercised without reference back to Parliament. If I am asked to quote an example, then the quickest to come to mind are the British Rail Act 1981, and the present Oil and Gas Bill. There is a mass of precedent in any case. I could quote from other Acts too.

The noble Lord the Minister will forgive me. It may be that I have made a wrong intervention and I apologise if I have done, but he is the last person who would want to mislead the Committee. Is the noble Lord saying that under the Oil and Gas Bill there was not the necessity to have a statutory instrument even by the negative procedure? I say it because I was arguing the case for the affirmative procedure. It may be that I am wrong, but my recollection is that there was a negative procedure that was required. Therefore, the noble Lord the Minister is unintentionally misleading the Committee.

I am not aware that I am misleading the Committee. Certainly I would not do so intentionally. I would not want to do so unintentionally. But I am advised in fact that the situation which I describe is the case in the Oil and Gas Bill. If it should not be so, then of course the noble Lord knows that I will see that that assertion is corrected. The fact is that it does not alter the basic tenor of what I am saying and which so concerns my noble friend Lord Balfour. Here is nothing that is new and that is here for the first time. The amalgam to which he refers is not new at all. This is normal procedure. If we were to divide on this amendment and it were to be carried, then it has implications of massive scale. I really would ask the noble Lord to think carefully before he divides the Committee, because if he does I would have to say that we should wish to differ strongly with him on this.

I must return to the fray, if only for one minute. The noble Lord the Minister—and I am not going back on the point about the Oil and Gas Bill, or any other precedent—is asking the Committee to consider this issue: if there is a quarrel—because it could not be anything else—or a dispute between the National Bus Company and the Secretary of State as to whether it is for the public good, the wider public interest, which the Minister mentioned, as to whether assets should be sold, or shares should be sold, the Secretary of State decides and not Parliament, and not even a reference by the negative procedure, I say to the Committee, is to be allowed. I know of no precedent for that. If there is such a precedent, I say that it is a bad one and we ought to start setting the precedent the other way round.

The Minister has said that if this was carried it would have implications of massive scale. I would ask the Committee to let us have the implications of such a massive scale. Surely the logic which my noble friend Lord Mishcon has just put forward to the Committee cannot be answered. The Minister has confirmed that this is only a reserve power. He said that he hoped there would be sweet reasonableness and hoped there would be an agreed solution, but then, as my noble friend Lord Mischon says, there could be an argument. The minister then says," I don't care what you, the National Bus Company, say, or what the county council concerned say. I am now instructing you".

Surely in those circumstances Parliament ought to be able to say, "You are doing the wrong thing", or, "You are doing the right thing". Even if the Minister would say on behalf of the Government that they would have a look at this to see whether they could make provision even for the negative procedure, that would be something, but there is not even provision for that. There is provision for quite a number of other orders by negative procedure in this Bill, but nothing at all about this.

I do not believe that, as the Minister said, we are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is an important point. We took this stand on the 1981 Bill on the sale of British Rail subsidiaries. We lost on that occasion, but I believe there has been a more effective debate on this occasion, and that the issue has been shown to be so logical and such an important constitutional one that we shall ask the Committee to divide and support this particular amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

The first part of the amendment would delete from the Bill the requirement in Clause 3(3) that NBC should be under a duty to give effect to a direction from the Secretary of State. Clearly, there can be little point in enabling the Secretary of State to give a direction, without imposing a corresponding legal obligation on the recipient to comply with that direction. I cannot believe that any Government, of any political persuasion, could accept a situation where the recipient of a ministerial direction could choose whether or not to comply with it

The second part of the amendment refers to N BC's duties under Section 24 of the Transport Act 1968. The relevance of these duties to our policy of introducing private capital into NBC's coach and property interests has been much exaggerated. Section 24(2) of the 1968 Act puts NBC under a duty into agreements with passenger transport executives for the reorganisation of local bus services. Those agreements have in fact been in place for some time, and they would not be brought to an end by the Bill. Section 24(3) requires NBC to co-operate with British Rail, London Transport and the Scottish Bus Group in co-ordinating passenger transport services. In practice, the main importance of this duty has been in the provision of rail replacement bus services, and these, too, would be unaffected by the Bill.

The provision in Clause 3(3) that the bus company's duty to give effect to a direction should override its duties under Section 24 is there for the sake of legal clarity. For the reasons that I have explained, a major clash is most unlikely, but it is desirable that the Bill should make clear which duty should have precedence in the event of such a clash, if only to avoid the possibility of a spurious legal challenge. For those reasons, I regret that the Government cannot accept the amendment.

The Minister has said that the amendment would give authority to the National Bus Company to refuse a direction. I readily admit that that might be an error in the drafting; clearly, that is not what is intended. What we wish to lay down is that the Minister shall not give a direction if it is against the duties placed on the bus company under the 1968 Act. The noble Lord said that the duties, not powers—I must not use that word—laid down in the 1968 Act would not be affected by the proposals for disposal in the Bill.

We shall have to look very carefully at what the Minister has said. It would appear to me that if an operating subsidiary dealing with stage carriage services in, say, Cumberland was disposed of, there might well arise a conflict in regard to the duties imposed on the company or its subsidiaries by one of the provisions of the 1968 Act. Therefore, we shall have to consider very carefully what the Minister has said and see whether or not this is an important issue to which we ought to return. It appears to us that anything which makes the bus company set on one side the duties that are placed on it by the 1968 Act, ought to be avoided. As I say, we shall have to read Hansard in order to consider carefully what the Minister has said, and then decide whether to return to the amendment, either in this form or in a revised form, at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I wonder whether I may make just one observation at this stage. When we were discussing Amendment No. 6, I think, I referred to the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill and the procedure therein. I think that I ought to correct something that I said at the time. I was advised that there was no requirement placed on Parliament, even by way of the negative resolution procedure. In fact, I am now informed that there is a requirement in the Bill. I should not in any way want to mislead the Committee, and so I thought that I should take the opportunity to apologise for the misstatement, and I readily do so.

We are very grateful for the Minister's statement.

moved Amendment No. 8:

After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

I think that I should be able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that his proposed new clause is unnecessary. As he says, there is no difference between us on the end objective. Nothing in the Bill alters or limits in any way NBC's powers to develop its property in conjunction with other public authorities, be they other nationalised industries, local authorities, or other publicly-owned bus operators, such as the PTEs. Such developments are frequently a sensible way of making best use of an NBC site, and the Government wish to see them continue. Indeed, we have said so explicitly in the first words of Part 1 of the Bill,

"Without prejudice to any powers conferred on them by any other enactment".

The point of the Bill is not to restrict what NBC already does. It is to allow it the freedom to develop new ways of unlocking the potential of its property assets. The chairman of NBC, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has himself said that,

"passenger facilities are not always of the highest standards, and NBC would positively welcome the involvement of private capital in improving these".

NBC needs the powers in the Bill in order to complete the range of options open to it for developing its property in conjunction with private sector partners; for example, by selling a controlling interest in a subsidiary established to develop a specific site. By entering into arrangements of this kind, NBC will be able to widen the sources of capital for investment in bus properties at no cost to the taxpayer.

I do not think that there is a great deal between us in relation to the development of NBC property. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that his amendment is already catered for in Clause 1 of the Bill, and therefore I trust that he will feel able to withdraw it.

I wonder whether the noble Lord can give a further reassurance, since 1 think he gave an assurance during Second Reading of the Bill. The disposal of properties in order to raise finance for both the railways and the bus companies is one matter. The other matter which I raised was that of an integrated transport system, whereby a terminal in a city or town or the metropolis is one where you can catch a train, a bus, a Tube and so on. This is one of the points which has not come out at all.

The noble Lord has given assurances that these property disposals will be made sensibly, with PTEs and so on. But what I have not heard the noble Lord say—no doubt it is due to my fault rather than his—is that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to have an integrated travel terminal in cities for the benefit of passengers. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that it is an incredibly inconvenient system that we have at the moment, due to historical reasons, with the bus stations put at a considerable distance from the railway stations and passengers unable to switch; and certainly so on days like today.

All I am asking, with the help of this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is whether it is Government policy to have these travel centres of an integrated kind in our cities, and, if that is the case, then will he give an assurance that this Bill, as well as the Railways Bill, will be used to see that these properties actually emerge through the disposals of both the railways and the Bus Company?

I do not quarrel at all with the basic tenet of what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, says. I would not have thought that what we are talking about on this amendment, in this part of the Bill, was relevant to his point, other than that it would bring us to a state in which the Bus Company could then do the things that it wants to do with regard to its properties; and I say again that nothing in the Bill in any way changes or detracts from its present powers. It is to bring an additional new scene (if you like) into the whole area of this kind of possibility.

Other than to comment in general on what one might like to see in the way of an integrated situation, which clearly would be a good thing to have, although I want to say something to persuade the noble Lord that he need have no fears so far as this proposal is concerned I think I would have to say that I do not think that this particular measure will contribute a great deal towards it. I think that is something which will have to develop as part of the whole philosophy that we arc trying to see—and what is that? We are looking for (and I use the word again, if I may) scenario, where we have a greater scope for the National Bus Company to work in conjunction with the private sector to (if you like) make the most of its resources.

That may be, in some cases, by selling the property and taking the funds and applying them to some other developments which they may feel are in the interests of what they are seeking to do. That would be one situation. There may be others as well, which I can think of, and I am sure the noble Lord himself can think of many more, in that he has expressed his concern that there should be greater integration.

But what this amendment does, I think, is to, express a concern which I think may not be there, because the clause really takes care of it. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will want to consider that again carefully, but that would be my response to him on the amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance, and we shall read very carefully what he has said. It should be borne in mind that we are not opposed to the development of proper schemes. In fact, I believe a press notice was issued only recently, a few days ago, which said that the Bus Company had entered into an agreement with its own pension fund for the development of a particular property without requiring any instructions at all, either from Parliament or from the Secretary of State.

The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is a very valid one, and this could be the sort of issue on which there could be conflict between the Bus Company and the Secretary of State on a disposal and which might require the type of affirmative decision that this Committee unfortunately rejected on a previous amendment. But I will take careful note of what the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

May I ask the Minister just a few points on this? Clause 4 is the one which deals with the provision of services for related companies, whereby the Bus Company can, I understand, enter into any commercial agreement with a related company—that is, one to which it has disposed of property—to provide maintenance services, and so on, to the related company. May I ask: If the services are to be permitted to a related company, could there not also be powers to the National Bus Company to give similar services on a commercial basis to any other body, provided, of course, it is not a competitor of the National Bus Company, which they would not wish to do?

Furthermore, Clause 4 provides that "related company" means a company in which the Bus Company has at any time had an interest of not less than 20 per cent. With the passage of time, it could be many years previously that the Bus Company had had an interest in this related company, and that would be more important to the point that I have raised. If such a facility is to be given to the National Bus Company to make such an agreement on a commercial basis, is there any reason why this facility should not be extended to enable the National Bus Company, in its wisdom, to give a similar service to another undertaking, bearing in mind that the related company might be one in which the Bus Company had a 20 per cent. interest many years previously?

This clause in fact serves two purposes. It defines "related company" for the purposes of this clause and for Clause 5, and it confirms that the NBC may provide for any related company services which they have power to provide for any of their subsidiaries. It would be unreasonable to give NBC an unfettered power to provide management-type services for any company in which they had ever held an interest, no matter how small. The distinction therefore strikes a balance by allowing NBC to provide services to any company in which they hold or have held at least 20 per cent. of the ordinary issued share capital, either directly or through nominees or subsidiaries.

The essential point is that NBC will be able to continue to provide services to a previously wholly-owned subsidiary transferred to private onwership. The clause will ensure that NBC's regional operating companies can continue to provide shared facilities for the coaching businesses when they are in private ownership. The decision whether to offer services to a related company, and the terms and conditions, will be a matter for NBC's commercial judgment. Whether to buy the services will be a matter for the related company to decide. I hope the noble Lord will perhaps find the extra clarification helpful.