My Lords, I am required to inform your Lordships that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, will not ask his Starred Question.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, in our strategic guidance to the British Council we invited it to focus on countries where it can achieve most impact, particularly those in transition to democracy. In its current strategic review the council has decided to increase resources for central and eastern Europe. Spending in western Europe will decline initially as the council reduces expenditure on premises and other fixed costs, but that will permit investment in new IT-based programmes and services that exploit new technology and are designed to reach wider audiences, which in turn will benefit Europe. The council will continue to spend much the same proportion of its grant-in-aid as before—nearly 40 per cent—on Europe.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer and understand the purpose behind it. If it is the avowed purpose of the Government that Great Britain should be as important to France and Germany as both are to each other, how can it possibly be justified in the case of Germany to reduce the total expenditure by nearly half and close many offices, including the one in Cologne, and to make substantial reductions in France and other European countries, for example Spain and Italy? Does the Minister agree that this is not the right time to take such action?

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord slightly misunderstands the thrust of the review. The council's plans for Germany, for example, do not reflect the council's waning interest in that country but a mature judgment as to its capabilities and the opportunities to make an impact there. Infrastructure costs at present absorb 80 per cent of available funding and, at the same time, there are tremendous possibilities to exploit the advanced state of IT and national media infrastructure in Germany. Accordingly, the council chooses to focus its physical presence in Berlin. As the noble Lord rightly said, the offices in Cologne, Hamburg, Leipzig and Munich are to close. However, the council has just opened a highly acclaimed showcase office in Berlin and has decided to devote the bulk of its resources to programmes and services, not buildings.

My Lords, if I heard my noble friend correctly, I believe that she referred to a new strategy for the British Council. Can my noble friend provide a little more detail of new strategy?

My Lords. I referred to the strategic review which has just been undertaken by the British Council. The aim of the council in deciding on the new strategy is to ensure that it maximises its impact so that the resources at its disposal bring optimal benefits in term of improved perceptions of Britain. A major aim of the council's new strategy is to exploit the enormous potential of new media by offering new IT-based services. Their advantage is that they can reach much wider audiences, thus multiplying the impact, and allow the council to shift resources from infrastructure to programming activity.

My Lords, while I sympathise with the implications behind the noble Lord's Question, does the Minister agree that it is still very important that the British Council should devote a high proportion of its resources particularly to English language teaching in those countries which were formerly francophone and whose second language was French but have, often as a matter of policy, decided that English should become their second language?

My Lords, the British Council is very active in the realm of English language teaching. To its great credit, the council also earns money by so doing and thereby augments its overall spending activities. That will remain a high priority for the British Council.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that how the British Council spends its resources and directs its input is best left to that body in view of its past record? Does the Minister also agree that, although it is open to investigation, at the moment the council in no way warrants any form of criticism?

My Lords, I assume from what has already been said this afternoon, and is frequently said in this House, that the British Council is not subject to great criticism; on the contrary, it is usually much praised in your Lordships' House. The council undertook a review of its activities over the next five years on its own initiative, not at the prompting of the FCO; nor was it an exercise about saving money.

My Lords, will my noble friend take steps to ensure that the British Council is thoroughly aware of the prevailing mood in the United Kingdom, which is fundamentally against any further tampering with the British passport?

My Lords, I make two points in response: first, I am not sure that that is one of the responsibilities of the British Council; secondly, I know of no plans to tamper with the British passport.

My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by sending my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for early recovery from her current indisposition.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his good wishes to my noble friend Lady Scotland. We hope very much that the noble Baroness will be back with us shortly, if not tomorrow, perhaps the next day.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind explanation of the British Council's review. I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for her chairmanship of the British Council and for the way in which she has carried out the review. Nonetheless, although the Government have done better by the British Council than the previous government, I believe that the Government should put further funding into the British Council.

My Lords, as a result of this year's spending review, the Council will receive a £25 million increase in its grant in aid over the next three years. I believe the Government are doing as much as they can for the British Council for the moment.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British Council has done some excellent work in central and eastern Europe, not just in terms of English language training, but also in arranging conferences and seminars dealing with the needs of the European Union accession countries? Will she ensure that the Government give their encouragement to that work?

My Lords, that is an important part of the work of the British Council. It will look, especially in Europe, at helping countries which are in their transition to democracy, including many of the European Union applicant countries.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government understand the concerns which have been raised about the allowances paid to gardeners employed by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. As your Lordships know, it is the commission's responsibility to set these allowances.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the standards in the cemeteries which are looked after by the commission in all parts of the world are to its credit? To those who have members of their family or old comrades buried there it matters a great deal.

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the state in which the war graves cemeteries and the memorials are kept is an enonnous credit to those who care for them—the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the expatriate gardeners and indeed the gardeners of other nationalities who give their support.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that because the cemeteries are so well-cared for—I have to visit some of them from time to time, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, knows—no act ion should be taken which would reduce the very high standards maintained over many years?

My Lords, I agree. But, more importantly, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission agrees that the maintenance of the very high standards of the cemeteries and of the memorials to the missing dead who do not have individual graves must not be jeopardised.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the decision as to whether to reduce these allowances is to be taken by the commission and not by the Government, we are entitled to express a view on the issue? It is, I should have thought, the unanimous opinion of noble Lords on both sides of the House, especially those of us who are ex-service people, that no step should be taken which would reduce in any way the excellence of the manner in which the cemeteries are looked after. To reduce the allowance of the gardeners appears on the face of it to be a form of insensitive meanness which would be unworthy of the commission or of this country.

My Lords, perhaps I may explain the genesis of what has happened without expressing a view as to whether what has happened is right. Changes were made in 1998 to the allowances paid to those serving overseas. Similar reviews have been undertaken in, for example, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the British Council, which your Lordships discussed a few moments ago. This is part of the same review, although it is undertaken differently by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Of course your Lordships are entitled to express a view; so are the many others who have expressed a view. It is Her Majesty's Government's position that it is a privilege as well as a duty to look after the sites which commemorate our war dead.

My Lords, did the Minister read the letter in the Mail on Sunday a week ago from Dr Moonie, the Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence, in which he said that not only the allowances but the salaries of these men are tax free? Surely that is not true, is it?

My Lords, perhaps I may try to explain the position as I know that it has caused some difficulty elsewhere. The actual sums paid to the individuals concerned are tax free. They do not pay tax on the sums they have received. What happens is that there is a discount in lieu of tax before the sums are paid. So my honourable friend was right when he said that the sums received, both salaries and allowances, are not taxed. I hope that that explains the position to the noble Lord.

My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that the Government are not responsible for the dreadful decision to look into the allowances, does my noble friend agree that the people who will be commemorated on Sunday week and those whom they left behind in graves never had the luxury of waiting for an independent inquiry into such a matter? Does she not further agree that if the matter is not settled before Remembrance Day those responsible should hang their heads in shame?

My Lords, the Government and, I am sure, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission—my noble friend is quite right to say that it is independent of the Government in this respect: the Government do not control the way in which it deals with its staff—seek to maintain the highest standards of maintenance and give the care, attention and respect which this country rightly owes our war dead. I have said that I do not believe that the commission will take any action that jeopardises those very high standards. But I cannot give an undertaking to my noble friend that my noble friend Lady Dean will have completed her work by 11th November. I am sure that she will proceed as expeditiously as possible, and I am sure that no one is more seized than she of the urgency of so doing.

My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness said in her first reply about the survey being undertaken by her noble friend Lady Dean. But why has there been this change in the method of negotiation which has given rise to the justifiable concerns expressed by noble Lords and by so many people outside? I have a totally separate question. Will the noble Baroness try to persuade the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to take on the maintenance of graves from campaigns which took place before 1914, particularly those in South Africa and the Crimea? I know from personal knowledge that the graves in South Africa are in a very poor condition.

My Lords, in 1998 the central system for calculating overseas allowances of a number of public servants—not only those in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission but public servants in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere—was changed. Each individual department then had to devise a system of its own. Such systems have already been devised in some of the large departments, such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. What we are discussing is the Commonwealth War Graves Commission going through its own revision of allowances. There is also a twice yearly updating of how the money that will be paid in the United Kingdom is paid to people locally to take into account currency fluctuations. I hope that that explains why this has happened.

My Lords, the Minister says that this issue is very much one for the commission and that the rationale for the present review is the activities of the commission. But the noble Baroness also says that the decision in 1998 to review overseas allowances was made by Her Majesty's Government. Does that mean that at the end of the day the genesis was indeed the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in 1998 and that the only reason there is a review today is directly as a result of the action of Her Majesty's Government?

My Lords, that does not follow. The action taken in 1998 has not resulted in the same kind of difficulty in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. It is the way in which this has happened that has caused the difficulty. Although allowances have moved up and down, there are a number of parts of the allowances. There are additions for accommodation and schooling overseas. These are very complicated arrangements, as I know from a former incarnation as a Civil Service union official. The fact is that the changes have taken place relatively peacefully—not without difficulty, I have to say—in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in the Ministry of Defence. However, on this occasion they have caused difficulty and for that reason, and as an act of good faith, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has decided to set up the review, a decision which I hope your Lordships can welcome.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the estimated final cost of the Jubilee Line extension is in the order of £3.5 billion. It is not possible to give separate figures for Westminster or any other station, as many of the construction contracts are priced across the whole of the Jubilee Line extension.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, in view of the considerable expenditure that must have been incurred at Westminster Tube station, does he find it satisfactory that at that station only one ticket machine accepts notes? Is he aware that that machine was out of order at 12.45 this afternoon? Finally, is he confident that his honourable friend Mr Livingstone will be able to sort out London Underground?

My Lords, noble Lords will be interested to know that a PFI known as Prestige has been working with London Underground. New ticket machines have already been provided for all London buses. The company has also gated 96 per cent of the Tube network. The PFI will provide new ticket machines at Underground stations, including the installation of 317 new touchscreen machines by March 2001. In addition, 50 "Queuebuster" machines will be installed in the busiest stations by the summer of next year.

My Lords, has my noble friend had an opportunity to visit some of the stations on the new Jubilee Line extension? Does my noble friend agree that, along with Westminster itself, stations such as Canary Wharf and Canada Water provide wonderful examples of British architecture? Any extra money that has been invested in them has proved to be money well spent.

My Lords, after the problems we faced towards the end of last year in driving the Jubilee Line extension to its conclusion, I have been delighted to note that a great deal of extremely positive comment has since been made about the Jubilee Line. Indeed, as my noble friend has suggested, the stations have already garnered many design awards. In addition, the PPP we have planned for the Underground should increase by up to one-quarter and perhaps even one-third the frequency of the trains travelling on that line.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, although Westminster Tube station may have taken longer to build and cost a little more than was intended, the end result is a worthy structure that will serve well the travelling public in this important area of London? Can we take it that this good example will be followed in the improvements to be carried out on the rest of the Tube system?

My Lords, I confidently anticipate that the PPPs we intend to put in place by the middle of next year will bring in £8 billion in investment which will help to upgrade the entire Tube system, along with the £5 billion that is to be invested in maintenance. I look forward to the Tube system benefiting considerably from the biggest financial boost that it will have received for a long time.

My Lords, my noble friend is right to emphasise the engineering triumph of the Jubilee Line and of the stations, which are a credit to our country, but as regards a more primitive level of engineering, is there any hope that the roadworks being undertaken outside the Palace of Westminster will be finished during our lifetime, so that one can walk safely from here to there?

My Lords, with some trepidation I should tell the House that we have been promised an early conclusion to some of the roadworks outside the Palace of Westminster. I look forward to some of the amendments that we intend to introduce in the Transport Bill, which will be considered by noble Lords later. It is hoped that progress can be made on all roadworks, but in particular those that affect London.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I took through its stages the Private Member's Bill for the Jubilee Line extension and, to that extent, I should declare an interest? I strongly support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel; namely, that the individual stations of the Jubilee Line, each designed by a different and highly skilled architect, are tributes to British architecture. However, can the Minister tell the House whether there is any suggestion of returning to the private Bill procedure? At least the Jubilee Line has been built, whereas projects like the Heathrow fifth terminal are still far from completion because of the changed procedures on transport issues. Are the Government considering a review of this matter?

My Lords, I am not aware of any intention to review this procedure. However, if I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Baroness. What I can say is that in our 10-year plan, drawn up in consultation with our colleagues at the DETR, we looked at the length of time generally taken to realise projects in the UK, and in particular at extremely large ones. We concluded that, once more elegant procurement systems are put in place, along with better planning, we should be able to advance the time taken, if not by one-half, then by one-third of the current length of time.

My Lords, is the Minister not being rather too kind here? Is not the truth that we have suffered from years of under-investment as a result of the failure of the previous Conservative government to address the problems of the London Underground? The reason the service is so poor and is not universally of the standard demonstrated at Westminster is that the Conservative government neglected the whole system.

My Lords, there is no doubt that the Underground has suffered from under-investment in the past. We believe that the route that we are taking through the PPP will help over the next 30 years by, initially, pumping in an additional £8 billion in investment and £5 billion for maintenance. We believe, too, that the private sector expertise that will be brought in to work alongside public sector operational management will ensure that we put in place the kind of system that a capital city such as London deserves.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether he has resolved his differences with his honourable friend the mayor of London as regards the ownership of, and methods of dealing with, London Underground? Does the Minister have any fears about whether such differences may delay the implementation of the various programmes that we all desire?

My Lords, only last week I held an amicable meeting with Mr. Kiley and Mr Livingstone to discuss transport in London. I am sure that they left that meeting assured that the Government are just as concerned as they are to ensure that London has in place the best possible public transport system. Noble Lords may know that the PPP is well on course. Best and final offers have now been invited for the two deep Tube contracts, while bids for the sub-surface railway contract were received in September. The next stage of that competition is about to commence. The mayor is fully aware of our determination to push ahead with that process.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

moved Amendment No. 105:

Page 71, line 23, at end insert—

("( ) The authority or authorities in question shall compensate any operator of a local service for any losses incurred by it as a result of such postponement.")

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of what lies behind the amendments. I hope that I can persuade him that they are unnecessary. I note his position in relation to quality contracts but, within that, we have to make sure that they operate fairly.

"are no longer met with respect to it".

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In regard to Amendments Nos. 105 and 110, I note what the Minister said about the possibility of a judicial review in the peculiar circumstances—it is to be hoped that they will be peculiar— where someone may suffer a financial loss. The reason for getting this provision onto the face of the Bill is that it would obviate the need for a judicial review. The process of litigation is inevitably and always greatly expensive, and I had hoped to avoid that necessity.

moved Amendment No. 109:

Page 76, line 36, leave out ("earlier than 21") and insert ("later than 6").

My Lords, when he replies, will the Minister tell us precisely why it would take so much longer in England and Wales to do the work than it would in Scotland. Obviously, the Scots Parliament has the ability to make a separate decision, but is this a sign that in Scotland arrangements are more efficient?

My Lords, as I have said previously, this is a matter for Edinburgh. Our decisions do not bind the Scottish Parliament, just as its decisions do not bind us. Arrangements in England and Wales for the introduction of the changes may be different from those in Scotland. Our judgement is that the provision for at least 21 months is an appropriate one.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. He says that this is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide. He is entirely right; and we need not do precisely what the Scots do. However, the variation between the English situation and that in Scotland will surely be so sharp that some fuller explanation is required. There is a substantial discrepancy. Did the noble Lord's officials discuss the matter with officials in Edinburgh to find out why the Scots believe that a shorter period is appropriate in the circumstances described?

My Lords, there has been some discussion between ourselves and Scottish Executive officials on this matter. As I understand it, the Scottish provisions will allow for some variation if in due course the Scottish figure proves too low. We are both making a stab at this. Scotland is starting at one end of the scale, and we are starting at the other. At the end of the day, we may well end up somewhere around the 15-month period when the system has been running for five or six years. We believe that we need to provide some degree of stability and reassurance to operators, and 21 months seems about right, working backwards from that to the time that it takes not only to complete the tendering process, but also for an operator to withdraw from existing routes and redeploy resources if that operator is not successful in terms of the quality contracts scheme. I am not being dogmatic; it is just that a longer period seems appropriate and would provide a degree of smooth transition as distinct from a potentially precipitate transition from one operator to another in certain circumstances which might be envisaged by a six-month figure. Our Scottish colleagues take a slightly different judgment. That, for now, is our judgment. As I say, we would take powers, under the subsequent subsection, to vary the period should experience prove us wrong.

My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's exposition of the difference. Nevertheless, this place would not be doing its duty if it did not probe further the factors behind this division. I appreciate that the noble Lord does not bring a departmental view to the matter. But, for example, could the Public Accounts Committee be given the chance to carry out an investigation? We are talking about a substantial factor in terms of the length of contract and it has caused a great deal of public interest.

My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that this is Report stage. Once the Minister has finished replying, it is not possible for noble Lords to intervene. Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if my noble friend were to offer to write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, I am more than happy to receive a reply in writing. I apologise for my mistake.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply—although I am slightly disappointed. To those on these Benches, as longstanding advocates of devolution, the principle of the devolved assemblies making their own decisions is the right one. However, I remain firmly of the view that this is an operational matter. Since many of the contractors will be the same bus companies, I am surprised that they will require six months in Scotland and 21 months here. Twenty-one months is a long period of time. I am reminded that we had three transport Ministers in less time than that at the start of the Parliament. Nevertheless, for the present I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 112:

Page 78, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

My Lords, there are two amendments in this group tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland. These amendments were originally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Unfortunately, the noble Lord is not present in the Chamber, and my noble friend is unable to reach us today due to the current weather conditions, living as he does in the far North West. Rather than attempt to put forward the arguments, I ask the Minister to be good enough to supply us with the answers to these amendments that he will have had prepared for him. I believe that to be the best that we can do in the circumstances.

Perhaps I may begin by dealing with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness and her noble friend explaining our understanding of why those amendments are unnecessary, and shall do so as rapidly as possible.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will give the House the answer that he would have given to my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland on Amendment No. 182. It is a straightforward amendment. It provides that when an operator fails substantially, the traffic commissioner may disqualify that operator from further operations. A response would be helpful to the House. There is a relatively short period between this stage and Third Reading during which my noble friend may wish to consider what to do.

My Lords, my note says that the Liberal Democrats need a reply in writing and orally. There is a slight difficulty about the references in her noble friend's amendment. I understand that the noble Baroness needs reassurance—I can give it to her—that the traffic commissioners will have exactly the same powers to enforce against breach of registered details by what is referred to as an exempted operator under the quality contract scheme as they would in respect of a bus operator outside that area. I believe that that is the assurance the noble Baroness and her noble friend seek.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As he rightly says, we come to this part of the Bill from reciprocal positions. I suspect that there will never be a meeting of minds on these issues. I shall study the noble Lord's explanations with care. While I may understand them, I do not believe that I shall ever agree with them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 119:

Page 83, line 26, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 27.

My Lords, in this context we are dealing with the procedure for revoking or varying a scheme, not making a scheme, although some of the provisions read across. The noble Lord seeks to remove the power to make regulations in regard to revoking or modifying the procedures.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. However, I had some difficulty in following what he said on Amendment No. 119. I understand the need to modify the schemes—the Bill provides for consultation and for schemes to be modified—but I do not believe that the Minister has answered why what is set out on the face of the Bill may need to be varied. The Minister says that such a situation would be a rare occurrence with which I agree—I do not believe that such a situation should exist—but I do not understand why, if there is need to vary a scheme, the existing procedures cannot be complied with.

moved Amendment No. 122:

Page 84, line 13, after ("area,") insert—

("(aa) the fares for such local services,").

My Lords, our Amendment No. 123 is in this group and is directed to the same aim. I am happy to support the principles that have just been enunciated.

My Lords, it has been and remains our view that this amendment is technically unnecessary. Fares are part of the information which could and would come under,

"other matters of value to the public",

My Lords, I did not. That was remiss of me.

My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I replied to that amendment in order to avoid it coming up again at Third Reading.

My Lords, the Minister is optimistic if he believes that that will avoid the need for the issue to arise again at Third Reading. However, he may succeed.

My Lords, perhaps I may try because we believe that this amendment is also unnecessary. It seeks to make failure to agree satisfactory arrangements with bus operators as to the apportionment of costs a matter which can trigger the exercise of t he default powers in Clause 139. However, Clause 139(1) already states clearly that the local authority can step in where it is,

"unable to make satisfactory arrangements with one or more … operators".

My Lords, in view of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 125:

Page 85, line 40, at end insert—

("( ) If information is disclosed in contravention of subsection (4) the local transport authority which required its provision shall be liable to compensate the operator which provided it for any loss suffered by that operator as a result of its disclosure.").

My Lords, the noble Lord is asking the House to decide whether disclosure in such circumstances should be a matter for criminal or civil law, although I believe that he is making it a matter for both. However, my question relates to how that ties in with subsection (4), which deals with disclosures about particular businesses and about the affairs of an individual. The noble Lord seems to be more concerned about compensating businesses than individuals. I wonder where the right balance should lie.

My Lords, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, some reassurance in the sense that I was not intending to and shall not refer to the need for judicial review. I believe that the matter is somewhat simpler than that.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her comment, but I always make the blithe assumption that if I do have a somewhat inadequate amendment someone will show me what is wrong with it. She tends to improve my amendments enormously before bringing them back at Third Reading. However, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have obviated the need for that in his remarks that I will study with care. I am grateful to him for those comments. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 126:

Page 85, line 43, leave out ("by approved local authorities").

My Lords, my Amendment No. 134 is grouped with these and it is very simple. It deals with the issue of who should pay the penalty charge for someone who offends against a bus lane. We feel very strongly that it is the driver who is the person committing the offence and is the one who should pay the penalty charge. I accept that all too often, particularly with camera equipment, computers and everything else in this day and age, the owner of the vehicle is the person who can be caught. The fact of the matter is that it is the driver of the vehicle who commits the offence and it is only the driver. It is never the owner if the owner is not the driver. There is a difficulty here and one has to accept that. If the driver happens to be an employee of the owner, the matter becomes even more complicated, but at least the owner knows exactly who to tackle.

My Lords, before the Minister replies, I ask whether the Government are absolutely satisfied that it will be possible to hold someone responsible—driver or owner—without any doubt in the law. We need to have a clear position if we are to go forward.

My Lords, the Opposition are entirely wrong. If the driver is self-employed it follows that he will be liable. If the driver is employed by someone else it follows that that person will be responsible for the fine. It may be that that person will, if he is not lacking in responsibility, take the appropriate moves against the employee. The Government are entirely right about that and the Opposition are, as usual, entirely wrong.

My Lords, I ask my noble friend for a little clarification on his introduction. Am I correct in thinking that in London it is still proposed that the owner is liable? If he could identify someone else as being the driver, that driver would become liable. If that is not the case outside London, how is it intended to identify the driver? From a camera or some other device?

My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Berkeley—in a slightly more subtle way than my noble friend Lord Bradshaw—in connection with whether we were entirely bomb-proof in relation to various proceedings arising in this area under the Human Rights Act. The answer is that time will tell. The reality is that although these cases, including the one referred to in Scotland, have been widely reported as relating to camera enforcement and road traffic offences where the owner is required to identify the driver—where driver and owner are the same, self-incrimination therefore arises—in fact none of those case where the courts have so far ruled, whether in England or in Scotland, relates to camera enforcement in this context. Nevertheless, there may be developments in that area.

moved Amendment No. 127:

Page 85, line 44, leave out ("bus lane").

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his amendment. I too had details of the problems arising in Bristol. It is always a surprise to me that we have bus lanes in many places, some enforced better than others, but in many cases the junctions allow cars in or consist of a box junction.

My Lords, I too should like to express a few words in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.

My Lords, our provisions in this context considerably extend the powers of local authorities in relation to camera enforcement in bus lanes. Were we to extend that further into the area of yellow box junctions, we should need to be clear about what we were doing.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept that the amendment may be subject to technical drafting difficulties. I hope the noble Lord accepts that in such a technical area it is extremely difficult to draft amendments of this kind. However, before we finish our consideration of the Bill, I urge the Minister to consider whether the Secretary of State should take powers. From the evidence that I have seen, in many cities bus operations are at the point of breaking down and, unless something is done, there will be a real problem. It will be impossible to operate bus services economically and to time, and I do not see how that can in any way further the Government's strategy. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendments Nos. 129 to 131:

Page 86, line 1, at end insert—

("( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide for the imposition of penalty charges—

(a) by approved local authorities, or

(b) both by approved local authorities and by Transport for London or London local authorities or both.").

Page 86, line 16, leave out from ("buses") to end of line 18 and insert ("(or a particular description of bus), or

(b) only by buses (or a particular description of bus) and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic.").

Page 86, line 18, at end insert—

("(4A) The roads in relation to which regulations under subsection (1) may authorise the imposition of penalty charges are—

(a) in the case of an approved local authority, roads in its area,

(b) in the case of Transport for London, roads in Greater London of a description prescribed by such regulations or all roads in Greater London, and

(c) in the case of a London local authority, roads in its area of a description prescribed by such regulations or all roads in its area.

(4B) Before making any regulations by virtue of subsection (4A)(b) or (c) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) Transport for London, and

(b) the London local authorities affected by the regulations.").

moved Amendment No. 133:

Page 86, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).

moved Amendments Nos. 135 to 140:

Page 86, line 30, leave out from first ("the") to ("and") in line 32 and insert ("conduct constituting the contravention is the subject of criminal proceedings or where a fixed penalty notice has been given in respect of that conduct").

Page 86, line 33, leave out ("by approved local authorities").

Page 86, line 34, at end insert—

("( ) Regulations under subsection (1) shall include provision for the level of penalty charges in the case of approved local authorities to be set by the authorities subject to the approval of the relevant national authority; and sections 74 and 74A of the Road Traffic Act 1991 apply to penalty charges in the case of Transport for London and London local authorities as they apply to additional parking charges.").

Page 86, line 36, after ("charges,") insert—

("( ) make provision for discounts or surcharges (or both),").

Page 87, line 5, at end insert—

("( ) Regulations under this section made by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor may make provision in respect of Greater London different from that in respect of the rest of England.").

Page 87, line 8, at end insert—

(""bus" includes a tramcar (within the meaning of section 141A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) and a trolley vehicle (within the meaning of that section),").

moved Amendments Nos. 142 to 145:

Page 87, line 9, leave out ("the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984") and insert ("that Act").

Page 87, line 12, at end insert—

(""London local authority" means a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London,").

Page 87, line 23, leave out ("outside Greater London").

Page 87, line 30, after ("1") insert ("or 6").

My Lords, I must advise the House that if Amendment No. 146 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 147 to 149.

moved Amendment No. 146:

Page 87, line 32, leave out from ("Any") to ("subsection") in line 43 and insert ("person to whom a current statutory travel concession permit has been issued by a travel concession authority and who travels on an eligible service on a journey—

(a) between places in the authority's area, and

(b) beginning at a relevant time,

is entitled, on production of the permit, to be provided with a half-price travel concession by the operator of the service.

(2) A travel concession authority must, on an application made to it by any person who appears to the authority to be an elderly or disabled person residing in its area, issue to the person free of charge a permit, in such form and for such period as the authority considers appropriate, indicating that he is entitled to the concession specified in subsection (1).

(2A) In this section "statutory travel concession permit" means a permit issued pursuant to subsection (2).

(2B) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may issue guidance to travel concession authorities to which they must have regard in determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether a person is a disabled person.

(2C) Before issuing guidance under subsection (2B) the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales shall consult—

(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee,

(b) associations representative of travel concession authorities, and

(c) such other persons as he or it thinks fit.

(2D) A person entitled to be issued with a statutory travel concession permit by a travel concession authority may agree with the authority that he is not to be entitled to the concession specified in").

My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying to my amendments before I speak to them. Amendments Nos. 162 and 168 in this group, which raise an important issue, are both slightly controversial, particularly the latter. Do the Government envisage that when a driving licence is withdrawn on account of disability, which is one of the reasons why an individual is granted a concessionary fare, it shall be done permanently on the grounds of permanent disability? Alternatively, if a person has been unable to obtain a licence because of a disability which can he alleviated—therefore, the loss may be only temporary—will the individual be able to have a concessionary fare while he or she is without a licence? I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will have something to say about this complicated matter because it is something about which disability groups are quite concerned. I put forward this matter, with which the noble Lord may not agree, in order to have the Government's views on the record.

I deal first with government Amendment No. 171. That amendment requires that local authorities should only "have regard to" the issues. I am advised that originally the Government intended to insert the words "must act in accordance with". Guidance is purely advice. No matter how often one gives advice, one cannot make the person take it. The Government may wish to strengthen that particular amendment at the next stage of the Bill.

"persons who have used in-patient mental health services and require continuing support".

My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 168 would cover a person who had been refused a driving licence permanently. The government amendments do not echo that. It is possible for a person to be refused a driving licence on medical grounds but to be issued with one if the medical condition improves: epilepsy is one example and blindness through cataracts which are subsequently operated on is another.

moved Amendment No. 150:

Page 88, leave out line 8 and insert ("the concession specified in subsection (1)").

moved Amendments Nos. 151 to 155:

Page 88, line 11, leave out from first ("blind") to end of line 15 and insert ("or partially sighted,").

Page 88, line 16, after ("is") insert ("profoundly or severely").

Page 88, line 18, leave out ("seriously impairs") and insert ("has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on").

Page 88, line 20, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—

("(f) does not have arms or has long-term loss of the use of both arms,").

Page 88, line 28, at end insert ("otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol").

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 156:

Page 88, line 28, at end insert—

• ("( ) is a specified companion of an eligible person who, in the opinion of the authority responsible for the administration of the scheme, requires the assistance of a companion to be able to travel on public transport, or
• ( ) is a person who has used in-patient mental health services and requires continuing support.").

My Lords, I told the House that if Amendment No. 146 was agreed to, I could not call Amendments Nos. 147 to 149 because they were pre-empted by Amendment No. 146.

My Lords, I shall not move Amendment No. 156 but come back to it at a later stage if necessary.

moved Amendment No. 158:

Page 89, line 9, leave out from ("Wales") to end of line 14.

moved Amendment No. 161:

Page 89, line 46, leave out ("for") and insert ("the full cost to the operator of").

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that our firm intention is to maintain the present principle. That principle is underlined in the regulations. It provides for the reimbursement to operators of concessionary fares. That principle is that each operator should be left no better and no worse off by virtue of participation in the concessionary fare scheme.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. The amendment was tabled with a desire not to upset anything but to make sure that stability would continue. I think the Minister answered the point when he said that the operator should be no worse off. That seems to cover the point quite adequately. I am grateful for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendments Nos. 163 to 167:

Page 91, line 36, after ("(5),") insert ("for "are persons, or any description of persons," substitute "by an authority are persons appearing to the authority to be persons" and").

Page 91, line 36, leave out from ("for") to end of line 39 and insert ("paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute—

"(b) who are blind;

(c) who are partially sighted;").

Page 91, line 40, after ("are") insert ("profoundly or severely").

Page 91, line 43, leave out ("seriously impairs") and insert ("has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on").

Page 91, line 44, leave out from ("who") to end of line 45 and insert ("do not have arms or have long-term loss of the use of both arms;").

moved Amendment No. 169:

Page 92, line 7, at end insert ("otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol").

moved Amendment No. 171:

Page 92, line 7, at end insert—

("( ) After that subsection insert—

"(5A) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local authorities to which they must have regard in determining whether a person falls within subsection (5)(b) to (i) above.

(5B) Before issuing guidance under subsection (5A) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee;

(b) associations representative of local authorities; and

(c) such other persons as he thinks fit."").

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 171, Amendment No. 172:

Line 3, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

My Lords, I can indeed give that assurance to the noble Baroness. I hope that meets her requirements in her amendment to my amendment.

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 173:

Page 92, line 7, at end insert—

("( ) After that subsection insert—

"(5A) Where a disabled person's impairment prevents them making use of mainstream public transport services concessionary fares shall apply to services operated under sections 19 or 22 of the Transport Act 1985 that are fully accessible to people who travel in their wheelchairs."").

My Lords, I warmly support the amendments, particularly the amendment which seeks to remove the time restriction. I very much support the amendment which would publicise the eligibility criteria. There are problems. Many people do not know whether they are entitled. Some people miss out. If those people knew the criteria, they might find that they were able to make use of the concession.

My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words in support of the amendment. It is a good aim that the concession should be available when people want to use it. To say that there is a concessionary fare but that at certain times people are not allowed to use it is merely giving half a loaf rather begrudgingly as opposed to giving the whole loaf, to which they are surely entitled.

My Lords, I am not too clear that the issue of timing arises on any of the amendments to which the noble Lord referred. As I understand it, he is speaking to Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. He also referred to Amendment No. 175. I do not think that those amendments directly deal with the time issue. Perhaps the noble Lord can offer clarification. He is looking as puzzled as I was when he was speaking. There is an issue of timing and I am quite happy to talk about it. We have discussed the matter before; but it does not seem to arise on these amendments.

My Lords, I am sorry if I muddled the noble Lord. I was speaking also, and should have said so, to Amendment No. 176, which does deal with the issue of timing. I must apologise to the noble Lord because I know that it is not his fault. I gave my preferred groupings some 10 days ago to the Government Whips' Office and I faxed them through again on Friday evening. But I am told that they never arrived, which I find extraordinary because my fax machine told me that they had gone through satisfactorily.

My Lords, I shall not quarrel with the noble Lord on the efficacy or otherwise of his technology or the Whips' Office technology. Clearly, there has been some confusion. That was compounded by the fact that he did not refer to Amendment No. 176 in his opening remarks.

My Lords, I do not normally interrupt Ministers when they are in full flow but I think that we are missing a beat here. People who are disabled are for one reason or another often not able to drive themselves to work or anywhere else. It is for that reason, and not because they are receiving a pension or are poor, that they are being offered this concession, which is greatly valued by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will consider this point. There is an important difference between concessions for people because they are disabled and concessions for people because they are elderly.

My Lords, but if one looks at the issue from the point of view of the operator, it is difficult to see why there should be a concessionary scheme for one group of people with the same scheme operating for different hours for another group of people benefiting from the concession. It is admittedly the case that when we first discussed the issue we were discussing it in relation to pensioners. I still do not believe that if we extended it to the disabled, which everyone has welcomed, we should necessarily alter the time of day at which the concession applies on the ground that it enables a particular group of workers to get to work. Were it to be opened up, I suspect that other groups of workers besides the disabled might well find a special case for having concessionary fares. I admit that different arguments apply to the disabled from those that apply to pensioners, but the case is not so overwhelming that I would wish to confuse the operation of the scheme by having different times. I therefore hope that the House will not be persuaded by the noble Lord's amendment in that respect.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether the government amendment would cover my point about publicising the eligibility criteria to make sure they are known by anyone who might be able to apply?

My Lords, the regulations would not necessarily cover publicity but guidance would be given to local authorities.

That they should publicise the scheme well?

Yes.

The Minister has given a full answer, which I shall study with care. If necessary, I shall return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 177:

After Clause 150, insert the following new clause—