Lords Sitting of 1 February 1968

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

GREECE: U.K. RECOGNITION AND PRISONERS' TREATMENT
3.6 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they reconcile their resumption of normal relations with the Greek Junta with the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office that, "There is reason to believe that the treatment of some prisoners has been excessive even by local standards, which are not the same as ours ".]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the fact that we have dealings with a Government in no way implies that we approve of its policies.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he would consider that recognition weakens the struggle of all those organisations, political parties and individuals fighting for full democracy in Greece?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords, I cannot agree with that. The Greek Government meet our criteria for recognition, and indeed no formal act of recognition was requested or made. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the best way of exerting influence upon foreign Governments is to have diplomatic relations with them.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can the Minister state how the conduct complained of in this Question compares with the treatment of literary men in Russia?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that is well outside the context of the original Question.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the reports that have come out of Greece, and in particular the horrifying reports of the representatives of Amnesty International about the ill-treatment of prisoners, the Government will see that this matter is raised in the Council of Ministers and the Council of Europe, and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? May I remind him that these organisations are pledged to defend human rights and freedoms?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has said, but I think really this is an instance where the best way in which we can operate is to make representations, which we hope will be effective representations, to the Greek Government, and we will do that through the normal diplomatic channels.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord reassure us that recognition does not in any way diminish Her Majesty's Government's disapproval of the actions and policies of the military junta? And will the noble Lord tell us what steps have been taken, and will be taken, by Her Majesty's Government to press for the full implementation of the amnesty promised before Christmas, and full democracy in Greece?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the first part of that question was answered in my Answer to the noble Lord's original Question. The fact that we have dealings and diplomatic relations with a Government in no way implies approval of its policies. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, we will, of course, make all the necessary representations through our diplomatic channels.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it would be difficult to base our diplomatic relations on reports of Amnesty International, seeing that there was a report of Amnesty about Aden which was very detrimental to our own Government? Also, does not the noble Lord think it would be a bad thing if the countries involved had stopped diplomatic relations?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. As I said earlier, whatever reports may have been made from other quarters, the Greek Government fully meets our criteria for diplomatic recognition.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this excuse, that by entering into a relationship with an offensive Government one can to some extent mitigate—or is in a better position to mitigate—the badness of their behaviour, is an excuse which we have heard time and time again but, to my knowledge, has never been effective?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord feels that way about diplomatic relations. I can only say that the Government believe—and perhaps I might add that I personally believe—that if we are to have an effective foreign policy, and if we are to make effective representations to other Governments, especially if there are aspects of their policies about which we have reservations, the only sensible thing to do is to see that we are not in a situation in which we cannot speak to them. It is for that reason that we have diplomatic relations.
LORD WAKEFIELD or KENDAL: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain why a resumption of negotiations and recognition of the Government of Rhodesia has not been effected, in view of what has just been said? Would it not be far better to recognise that illegal but de facto Government in the same way as has been done in Greece?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that question is about as far from the content of the original Question as Rhodesia is from Greece.

ARMED FORCES REORGANISATION
3.12 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the White Paper on the proposed changes in the role, size and shape of the Forces, referred to by the Prime Minister in paragraph 18 of Cmnd. 3515, will be published.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the decisions taken by Her Majesty's Government on defence, which were announced on January 16, will result in major changes in the role, size and shape of the Forces, their equipment and supporting facilities, and it will take some time to plan all this in detail. It will not, therefore, be possible to deal with more than the broad implications of these changes in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1968, which will be published later this month, but a Supplementary Statement, in which progress will be reported, will be presented later in the year.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask whether he is aware that there is growing apprehension throughout the Services about the coming cuts, so that it is important that the Government's proposals as to amalgamations and reductions should be made as soon as possible?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have noted the noble Lord's point.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the Government's intention to produce the Supplementary Statement before the Summer Recess?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer exactly when that Statement will be produced. Undoubtedly, for reasons of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, the Government are anxious to publish the Statement as soon as possible.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, would the noble Lord give some assurance that

867
when the Supplementary Statement is published it will be announced through a ministerial Statement to Parliament, rather than through what has now become the normal channels; namely, a Press leak? Will the noble Lord answer that question?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord regards that as a serious question. I think he is just trying to pull the Government's leg. If he reads what the Prime Minister said, and will read again what I have said, he will see that this refers to a proper Defence Statement which will be published as a White Paper.

RHODESIA: COST OF SANCTIONS
3.14 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the direct cost to this country of operating sanctions against Rhodesia, and what assessment they have made of the consequential indirect losses arising therefrom.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the direct cost of payments by the Exchequer, including aid to Zambia, was £27½ million between I.D.I. and December 31, 1967. The cost to the United Kingdom balance of payments cannot be precisely estimated. The cost for 1967 will probably be similar to that of £40 million given for 1966 by the Prime Minister on March 16, 1967. In addition, about £10 million of the additional cost of copper imports in 1967 might be attributed to the Rhodesian situation, among the many factors affecting copper prices.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, from those figures which the noble Lord has given, the cost so far as they know is £37 million a year. But is he aware that there are other matters which, as he said, are difficult to estimate,
868
such as the increased cost of tobacco, which now has to be bought from other sources which are more expensive than Rhodesia and which also involves dollars? Is it quite impossible to estimate what that may cost? Further, there is the indirect cost through other countries getting into the Rhodesian market and our permanently losing those exports. It is really impossible to make any estimate of those figures, which must be pretty considerable?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the figure I gave was £40 million, not £37 million, for the cost to the balance of payments, and this is made up of various items, including the estimated increased cost of tobacco imports, the estimated increased cost of copper imports and the other factors which the noble Lord has mentioned.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that the Government will not add to the loss this country is already enduring as a result of sanctions by giving way to the demand for some £20 million made by Zambia for the alleged losses that that country is supposed to be suffering as a result of sanctions?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is a different question. I cannot say anything on it except that the "alleged" loss is a very real one to Zambia.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises the continuing irritation that is involved between this country and Rhodesia—and I have been there quite recently—over these sanctions? They are doing no good. We are not going to bring Rhodesia down. Take them off and make a settlement.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are very anxious to make a settlement, but only on terms which are acceptable not only to the people of this country but to the whole of the rest of the world. No country has as yet recognised the present régime in Rhodesia.

SOUTH AFRICA ARMS EXPORTS EMBARGO
3.17 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the loss to the export trade which will be occasioned both directly and indirectly as a result of their refusal to export any arms to South Africa.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's decision to continue unchanged the arms embargo policy towards South Africa, which has been implemented since November, 1964, and which is in line with United Nations Security Council resolutions, took the economic as well as all the other implications fully into account. The value of the South African orders for defence equipment which might have been placed in this country had this policy been changed is impossible to assess. Her Majesty's Government have no reason to expect that exports to South Africa of other goods will be affected. Indeed, we hope and expect that, with the advantage given by devaluation, our exports to South Africa will continue to increase.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, could the noble Lord, arising out of that Answer, say that a direct loss of about £200 million might have been incurred through the refusal to supply arms, some of which I think are now being supplied by France? Furthermore, when he says that he does not expect any indirect loss to occur through this policy, does that take any account of the annoyance and anger that have been aroused by the refusal to export arms to a country which is allowing us to use her ports to an increasing amount because of the closure of the Suez Canal, and that a good deal of anti-British sentiment, which will find its way into withholding orders from this country, is being built up for a so-called moral reason which many people regard as pretty questionable? Could the noble Lord also tell me, in connection with this matter, how one uses a submarine, for instance, in Johannesburg to put down a civil riot?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in the first place the question about submarines and civil uprisings is totally irrelevant to the question of Her Majesty's Government's policy. When the noble Lord mentions a sum of money that has been involved in this whole policy—and I repeat, it is a continuation of a policy, not a new policy—this is, I presume, a calculation of his own, it certainly is not a figure that has any official status. We always accepted that an arms embargo must lead to some loss of trade, but I would ask the noble Lord and your Lordships' House to believe that there is far more at stake in the supply of arms to South Africa than a simple acceptance or rejection of a particular arms order. I can also assure the noble Lord that all the factors he has mentioned—political factors, economic factors and moral factors—were taken into account when Her Majesty's Government decided to continue this policy.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has considered the declaration by the South African Government that they may bring the whole of the Simonstown Agreement to an end, with the result that this country may lose the use of the ports which are so invaluable to us? And what action has been taken to ensure that we shall continue to have the use of those ports—not just Simonstown, but Durban and Cape Town, Which were worth more than a million tons to us during the war?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I can only say that Her Majesty's Government have received no approach from the South African Government on any of those points. The noble Earl will be aware, I am sure, that the Simonstown Agreement imposes no specific obligation upon us whatsoever to supply defence equipment, other than certain vessels which were supplied before the embargo was introduced. I am aware that the South African Prime Minister has said that he will look anew at the Simonstown Agreement in the light of the decision to continue our arms embargo. But I must tell your Lordships' House that we have, as I say, received no approach of this kind from the South African Government.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the

871
Government have made any assessment of the loss involved in regard to the export trade, as the Question asks? The noble Lord has given no figure at all. If there is any assessment, can we know what it is? If there is no assessment, could not the Government find out?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the fact that no assessment of this cost has been publicly announced does not necessarily mean that Her Majesty's Government have not made one. Requests from foreign Governments for defence equipment are normally confidential, and I cannot reveal to the House details of the items about which the South African Government made its inquiries in the first place. Therefore, so far as the arms argument is concerned I can give no figure; but so far as other exports to South Africa are concerned, I am sure it will be a matter of common knowledge to your Lordships' House that since this embargo was first imposed in 1964 our trade with South Africa has increased yearly.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord about the loss to the export trade, and whether he knows the figure; and if the Government know the figure, is there any reason why Parliament should not be told? I have not asked him about the breakdown of the figure, but can he not give the total? It really does not suffice to say, "We know it, but we are not going to tell you".
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I have said, the question of a loss to the export trade is irrelevant, because since the arms embargo was applied—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, that is the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I was saying, since the arms embargo was applied our exports to South Africa have increased, not decreased. If the noble and learned Viscount is asking a specific question about a specific inquiry from the South African Government about arms, as a result of which we decided to continue the present policy, then I am afraid I cannot make that figure public.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I was not asking that. I was merely asking the noble Lord to answer the Ques-
872
tion on the Order Paper, which he has not done.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, is not the reason for not replying that the Government are afraid to give the figures, in view of the great shock it would be to the country to see how much we have lost?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this passionate request for arms to South Africa from members of the Opposition simply ignores our moral reputation in the whole of the Afro-Asian world? If any noble Lords had been in the United Nations and had heard the proceedings there they would realise that our reputation would have become absolutely disreputable if we had reinstated arms for South Africa.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, notice that these remarks are coming only from one section of the Opposition?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful for those most recent interventions, but I must take issue with the noble Viscount opposite when he suggests that I have not answered the Question on the Order Paper. If he will look at the Question on the Order Paper he will see that I answered it by saying:
"The value of the South African orders for defence equipment which might have been placed in this country had this policy been changed is impossible to assess."
That is the answer to the Question on the Order Paper.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that our previous policy up to 1964 of supplying only arms which could not be used to deal with civil disturbance, was perfectly satisfactory, reasonable, and moral in world opinion? Is he aware that those nations in the United Nations who objected did not themselves ever have to send, or want to send, any kind of weapons to South Africa? And is he aware that there is no reasonable, rational justification for refusing to supply South Africa with arms which are necessary for her defence against overseas aggression?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot, of course, answer for policies or interpretations that were made before Her Majesty's Government decided to

873
continue with our present policy. I can only say that our policy is fully in line with a United Nations resolution, and that in deciding to continue it we took all the factors into account.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform someone who really does wish to follow the moral principle involved, why it is right to refuse arms to a country to resist external aggression, but right to supply arms to a country for the purpose of conducting a civil war?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not entirely sure of the fine point of that question. I am sure it will come home to me later. All I can say is that the reason that we have decided to continue this policy is that we have subscribed to a United Nations resolution on this subject, and we are anxious to abide by it.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to ask a quite moderate question: it will not be provocative in any way. I should like the noble Lord to give us an assurance that he realises the importance of Cape Town to this country to-day, having regard to the closure of the Suez Canal, and that he will do his best to facilitate agreement between this country and South Africa, because we are both completely dependent upon each other and if things went really wrong it would do almost as much damage to us as it would do to them. I simply want him to realise the amount of traffic—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I will not make a speech. I will sit down.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord care to give way?
LORD BOOTHBY: Does the noble Lord want me to sit down?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes.
LORD BOOTHBY: I am delighted to sit down.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the rest of the House shares the noble Lord's feelings on that matter. It would be helpful if he could ask a question. We have gone into this matter at
874
some length. The House is most tolerant, but there is a point beyond which it feels a little less tolerant, and I feel that the noble Lord was rather near that point.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, as the Government cannot make any assessment of the cost of their policy, may we take it that they will pursue it relentlessly, however much the loss may be? Is that the position?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.28 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In moving this Motion—I hope I am not out of order—may I say that there is nothing sinister in our taking all the stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill in one day, in the sense that it has no connection with the appointment of my noble friend Lord Shepherd as Deputy Leader of your Lordships' House. I should like to extend my congratulations to him, saying that it gives me and everybody on this side of the House enormous pleasure, and I venture to suggest that it will give pleasure to noble Lords opposite. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of allowing the remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken this day.—(Lord Shackleton.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to echo what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said. I am sure that, like him, I am completely out of order in what I am about to say. Nevertheless, I should like to say it, and I should like to add from these Benches our sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on his appointment. Like all Governments, the present Government have been known to make a mistake or two. But I think that everyone who knows the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, well—and we all know him very well indeed—will know that the Government have not made a mistake on this occasion. Not only has the noble Lord to be congratulated but also the Party opposite and, I would add, the House as a whole.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches should not like to feel that on this occasion we, too, were not out of order. I should like on behalf of my colleagues to express our sincere congratulations to the noble Lord on a very well-deserved promotion.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with the permission of my noble friend, may I join the other two noble Lords in being out of order? I have ben the Chief Whip for a number of years, both in Government and in Opposition, and although some of the "old hands" of your Lordships' House have not exactly accused me of breaking the Rules of the House, as I suggest they have been broken this afternoon at Question Time, perhaps I may have "bent" them from time to time. I am now again turning "gamekeeper", and it may be that, having been a "poacher", I shall now be a better "gamekeeper".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

LONDON CAB BILL
3.32 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the London Cab Bill be read a second time. This Bill is about licensed London cabs—of which we all have plenty of first-hand knowledge. We all know what they look like and we all travel in them. But it would be a bold man who would claim to know everything about the laws under which they operate. All told, there are eleven Acts of Parliament concerning cabs, ranging from 1831 to 1907, plus a scatter of
876
highly complex statutory instruments covering the period from 1934 onwards. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will bear with me if I explain the background to the provisions of this Bill in rather more detail than would be necessary if the parent Acts did not go back to the reign of William IV.
The Bill deals with three quite separate problems concerning the London cab: first, taxi fares and the 6-mile limit; secondly, the use of parking facilities by licensed cabs; and, thirdly, the use of words like "cab" and "taxi" on, or in connection with, vehicles that are not licensed cabs. The fares problem closely affects both the travelling public and the licensed cab trade. At present a cab driver is compelled in law to accept a hiring for any journey within the Metropolitan Police District if it is not more than six miles or does not last more than an hour. The rates of charge for such journeys are prescribed. But for any journey beyond either of these two limits, commonly known as the "compellable limit", the driver is free to decide for himself whether to accept the hiring at all and to agree with his would-be passenger what the charge will be.
The Bill will change this situation in two ways. First the Secretary of State is to be given power in Clause 1 to prescribe rates of charge for all journeys, irrespective of distance, providing they are within the Metropolitan Police District; and this includes London Airport. I believe your Lordships know why we feel this change is necessary. To put it bluntly, there is unfortunately a minority of licensed cab drivers who abuse this traditional freedom to negotiate the fare for these longer journeys. Exorbitant rates have been charged. What is more, the victims are all too often those who are most vulnerable—overseas visitors unfamiliar with our language and bewildered by our money—or the stranded wayfarer desperate to get home.
I emphasise that it is only a minority of cab drivers who exploit the present situation. But they cause a disproportionate amount of annoyance to travellers. They also do a lot of damage to the licensed cab trade, whose well-earned reputation for integrity and reliability is most unfairly tarnished by the activities of this grasping minority. Indeed, the

877
pressure for powers to regulate the fares for these longer journeys comes just as much from the licensed cab trade as from those concerned with the interests of the travelling public.
If the Bill becomes law, the Home Secretary intends to prescribe the rates of charge for all journeys within the Metropolitan Police District as soon as possible, but he will consult all three sections of the licensed cab trade (proprietors, owner-drivers and journeyman-drivers) before any order is made. This means that when the new rates have been prescribed, although a driver will still be free to refuse to accept hirings for journeys of more than six miles or lasting more than an hour, if he accepts such a hiring he will be able to charge only the prescribed rate.
Clause 2 of the Bill embodies a second change in the law. It enables the Secretary of State to extend the 6-mile compellable limit itself (either generally or for particular journeys). I emphasise, however, that this is intended as a reserve power only. We have no immediate intention of using it, and we hope indeed we shall not need to use it. But we must have it there in reserve in case a substantial number of drivers try to defeat the object of regulating the fares for the longer journeys by refusing to accept hirings in excess of six miles. The cab trade have never been exactly enthusiastic about this provision—a deputation from the Cab Section of the Transport and General Workers' Union came to see me about it when the point was first mooted about two years ago, and I fully understand their anxieties in this respect. We have always appreciated that extending the compellable limit would raise a number of questions of practice and principle that would need to be very carefully discussed with the trade. Indeed, it was for this reason that it was agreed in another place to write into the Bill a specific requirement for prior consultation before an order can be made under Clause 2. But, as I have said, we hope that it will not be necessary to invoke this provision. It is really up to the drivers themselves.
I now turn to the second topic of the Bill: parking facilities for cab drivers. This is an entirely domestic but very real problem; namely, what to do with their cabs when they want to knock off for a
878
meal. As the law now stands, a cab driver is allowed to leave his cab unattended in the public street only if he has parked it at one of the cab ranks that have special facilities for what is called "tail-end" parking. There are not very many of these, and for technical reasons which I need not go into now, it is not possible under present powers to increase their number. What we have therefore done in Clause 3 of the Bill is to get rid of one of these nineteenth-century provisions altogether and to tag on a proviso to the other one (which is in other respects still needed) so as to allow on-street parking by cabbies in any formally authorised parking area. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible solution to what must otherwise be an increasingly irksome, if not positively painful, situation for hard-working and hungry drivers.
I come now to the third topic of the Bill, the restrictions that we are seeking to impose on the signs that may be displayed on private-hire cars and on advertisements relating to private-hire car operations Only licensed cabs are allowed by law to ply for hire in the streets: that is why we have a licensing system. It is, and always; has been, illegal for a private-hire car to ply for hire in the streets. But, regrettably, it happens. And it happens much more easily if private-hire vehicles are able to display signs or slogans that include words like "cab" or "taxi" which have for decades been associated—in the minds of Londoners and many other people—with licensed London cabs. Clause 4 accordingly prohibits absolutely the display on these private-hire vehicles, the non-licensed vehicles, of the specific words "cab" and "taxi', whether alone or as part of a word such as "mini-cab", and also the two words "For hire" if they stand alone. More generally, it also prohibits the display of any sign so worded as to suggest, in effect, that the vehicle can be flagged down in the street. This is the point of this clause and it is an important point; the question of preventing, if we can, vehicles which are not licensed London cabs from being flagged down in the street.
In addition to the restriction on what cart be written up on the vehicle itself, Clause 5 imposes parallel restrictions on advertisements for private-hire cars. Here the method adopted to protect the public from

879
being misled is a requirement that advertisements inviting application to a London address or telephone number for the hire of cars may not incorporate the words "cab" or "taxi", unless the vehicles are licensed cabs or, if they are not, the advertisement makes it clear that they are not. This restriction applies only to advertisements. It does not apply, say, to a bare entry in the telephone book, or to the name of a firm written up over its premises, neither of which is an advertisement.
This should go a long way towards meeting criticism voiced by the trade at the illicit encroachment of private-hire car operations in a field where licensed cabs have enjoyed, and are entitled to enjoy, a monopoly. I realise that it does not tackle, nor is it an attempt to tackle, all the problems with which the cab trade would have liked us to deal. For they are greatly concerned with the wider question of just what the respective fields of operation of licensed cabs and private-hire cars ought to be in an area which at present is the monopoly of neither; namely, telephone hirings for more or less immediate journeys. This is a field in which licensed cabs most often come into direct competition with private-hire cars, and where, accordingly, and understandably, they are chafed by the fact that as licensed cabs they are subject to restrictions from which the private-hire cars are free.
The Bill does not attempt to provide solutions to these problems; nor would it be appropriate for it to try to do so. This is as yet an almost completely unmapped road. We recognise that there is a problem—that the present dichotomy between licensed cabs and private-hire cars resting simply on the right to ply for hire may no longer fit the needs of to-day's travelling public as well as it used to; or, indeed, provide an appropriate framework for the kinds of service that the London cab and private-hire car could or should provide in the conditions of London to-day.
It is questions of this sort that the Independent Committee under Mr. Maxwell Stamp, which was set up by the then Home Secretary last October, will be asking; and they are questions to which it is important that the right answers are found. I am sure your Lord-
880
ships will join me in wishing the Committee well in its explorations. I am equally confident that noble Lords will also agree that, meanwhile, we should only impede the Committee's work if we were to concern ourselves with piecemeal amendments of the hackney carriage law.
It is for this reason that we have confined this Bill to the three topics that I have outlined. All are matters on which the need for something to be done is in our view urgent, and where the solution—and I think it is obvious from the Bill—is straightforward. Our objectives may be limited, but they are very worth while. I hope that on that basis your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading and a fair wind through the rest of its passage through the House.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
LORD STONHAM: May I just move—
LORD HAWKE: I should like to ask about two practical points. The noble Lord has not really told us what, under the new dispensation, journeys over six miles will cost per mile, compared with what they cost at the moment on the clock, and details of that nature.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this has not yet been decided. I should have thought this could have been left until the debate. I did say in my speech that this Bill will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to fares, but that before doing so he will consult all three sections of the cab trade.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, also before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether consideration is being given to a problem which has been raised over the years in another place; namely, that of parking spaces at railway stations which are limited to a number of privileged taxicab owners? It means that when they are empty passengers have to go long distances before they can get a taxicab service at all.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope there will be a limit to the number of questions put to me before I sit down. But if my noble friend is unable to stay to speak in the debate, I can say that those are some of the "tail-end" taxi parking sites which I mentioned, of which

881
there are all too few. The Bill, as it were, lifts the legal restrictions on the parking of taxi cabs, and this and other points are either covered by the Bill or will be considered by the Independent Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stonham.)
3.48 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the brevity and clarity with which he has explained this Bill. May I say straight away that we on these Benches welcome this Bill, and we think it is a good one. I am particularly glad to see the flexibility that is contained in the Bill. Your Lordships are not very fond of giving Ministers powers to make regulations and so on, and as a rule they like to spell out the details in a Bill. But I am quite certain that this is impossible in a Bill of this kind. May I give one very simple example? Owing to the increased costs of taxis through the years, the increase in fuel bills, largely because of taxation and the fall in the value of money and so on, fares have to be altered every few years. For example, if one were to spell out in the Bill a list of the new fares that will come into force, then every few years, when the fares had to be altered, one would have to introduce a new Bill. So I am quite certain that it is right that the powers, particularly those in Clauses 1 and 2, should be left with the Minister. He has to consult those interested and then lay Orders before Parliament; and if we do not like any of those Orders we can in fact throw them out. I am sure that is the right way to handle this problem.
As the noble Lord has said, this Bill does not deal with all the problems. As he has explained, there is a Committee sitting under the chairmanship of Mr. Maxwell Stamp; but it is quite right that this Bill should have come forward on its own as soon as possible. But I should like to say one word about the very widespread criticism that there has been as to the delay in bringing the Bill forward. I seem to remember that when my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor was Home Secretary there was a draft outline of the Bill already in being. That is more than three years ago, and I appreciate that it is not quite as easy as would appear at
882
first sight to hurry these matters. There are many people to be considered and interests to be consulted. First of all, there are the taxi-cab proprietors or the taxi-cab companies, whatever one likes to call them. They have to provide a service, but they also have to make a reasonable profit or they will not operate, and then people in London will not have a taxi service. They are the first people who have to be considered.
Then there are the not quite distinct but rather distinct interests of the owner-driver; the man who owns one cab and drives it himself. His interests are by no means identical to those of the taxi companies. Then there are the journeymen drivers, the drivers who drive for the taxi companies. Their interests are different, very often, from the interests of the owner-drivers. As much agreement as possible has to be reached among these people, and then that agreement has to be put on a meter in the form of a taxi fare. Everyone has to give way a little, perhaps, but in the end they all have to charge the same fare although their interests are different. So negotiations are very complicated. Above all, apart from the interests I have mentioned, there are the interests of the public, those interests being that there should be a good taxi service at the cheapest possible rate. So the public have to be considered, too.
When it comes to this question of criticism about delay, I think the Government have possibly made one mistake—in all good faith; I concede that. If my recollection is right, up to 1965 what used to happen was that that section of the Home Office which was in charge of this matter saw these different interests one by one and discussed matters with them. Then, when they had more or less got agreement—I say "more or less", because you can never get complete agreement—they would go to the Home Secretary, who might say, "Yes; that is the sort of agreement I want"; or he might say, "I think the public are being rather hardly done by, and I shall not be able to agree when you get round a table unless they give way a little on this particular point". Or he may even say, "Look; the last increase in taxi fares was only three years ago"—shall we say?—"and it is too soon to alter it again, partly because of the expense of new meters", and so on. Having

883
reached that sort of stage, they all then got round a table and the final agreement was hammered out, after which legislation was introduced.
It was not a very fast-moving affair, but I think it moved faster than matters have moved lately. I am suggesting to the noble Lord that perhaps the Government have gone a bit wrong because in November, 1965, they set up the London Joint Consultative Committee. My Lords, there have been appalling delays—and I use that word advisedly—in the working of this Committee. By November, 1966, a year after this Committee was formed, they had had only two meetings, and at that date no further meetings were scheduled and no proposals ready. I do not want to be unfair: perhaps things have speeded up a little in the last year—I do not know. But I would ask the noble Lord to tell us when he comes to reply whether they are going on with this Committee, which has apparently slowed matters up. Or are they perhaps going to alter the functions of the Committee? Or are they going to alter the constitution of the Committee? Or is the Home Secretary going to put a bomb under them to make them work a bit more quickly? I think we are entitled to know the answers to these questions. This is always a slow business, but I think that in the last three and a half years the slowness has really been too much.
Because of this delay—and this is one of the main reasons why I wanted to talk about it—there have been widespread suggestions that all London cabs should be handed over to the Ministry of Transport. I most sincerely hope that this will never happen. The Ministry of Transport have many good points—I have always been a great admirer of their road engineering section, and so on—but they have never been renowned for their consideration of the public, and under the present Minister that seems to be getting worse. If your Lordships do not believe that, I suggest you look at the Transport Bill that is before the other place.
On the other hand, one of the prime duties of the Home Secretary in nearly all his legislation and in everything he has to do is to consider the public. He is, to a large extent, the guardian of the general public, and he is very used to
884
being just that. Some of these negotiations were going on when I was at the Home Office, and I remember my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor saying that he thought that in the discussions that were then going on the public had not been considered sufficiently. The Home Secretary is used to doing that in all kinds of spheres, and I hope most sincerely that he is going to be allowed to go on doing it and that it will never be transferred to the Ministry of Transport.
May I say just one or two words about the Bill? As the noble Lord has said, the obligatory journey now is a 6-mile one. I was sorry to hear him say that they were holding in abeyance this power to alter the limit, hoping they would not have to use it. That may be so, but really this "6-mile or one hour" business is a bit of nonsense nowadays. It was laid down, I think I am right in saying, in the Act of 1853. It was done, not for the public or for the cab driver: it was done to protect the horse—that and nothing else. My Lords, I went out the other day, walking about London looking for a cab-horse in need of protection. I could not find one; and that this 6-mile journey should stay there at all, or the one hour provision, is really a bit of nonsense. I hope, therefore, that these reserve powers will be used almost at once.
The situation now, before this Bill becomes an Act, is a most extraordinary one. It is that if you are going to do a journey of over six miles you are supposed to negotiate your fare with the taxi driver. If you do not do that, then, when he has driven over six miles, he can charge you anything he likes. The vast majority of taxi drivers are very reasonable, honest people who charge properly, but there are some who do not. Perhaps your Lordships can visualise these negotiations. You first of all start on a journey. You do not know it is over six miles, and it may well be that the taxi driver does not, either. He does not know it is 6¾ miles; he knows that only when he sees it on his meter. So it is a bit tricky. The man who has to negotiate may be a foreigner who has arrived at, say, Victoria Station. He cannot speak a word of English, and his kind friends have given him a piece of paper with an address written on it. He does

885
not know. He knows he is in London and that is about all. How is that man going to negotiate a fare?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord at this point. I assume he is talking about the present position, and that he made it clear that this will not be the position if this Bill becomes an Act, when all fares within the Metropolitan Police District—including London Airport—will be subject to the regulations which will be produced and approved by Parliament. The only option open to a driver will be to accept a hire of any duration within the Metropolitan Police District in accordance with the regulations or refuse the hire.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I did say that the present law is an absurdity. For that reason I hope that this 6-mile limit will not be left; because I think it might be misunderstood. It is nonsense to say that a taxi cannot be compelled to go more than six miles; it certainly ought to be longer. But I appreciate that when this Bill becomes an Act, according to the present wording, there will be a fixed charge over six miles. This will get rid of the Heathrow trouble we have all been having.
The second question I want to ask the noble Lord is this. How are these longer-distance charges to be brought to the notice of the passenger? Are there going to be new meters on the cabs to record an unlimited distance? Is a notice to be exhibited in the cab—or what? I am asking for information. I wonder whether this has been thought out.
That is all I want to say about the Bill. We approve Clauses 3 and 4, and I am not going into them, as they have been fully explained by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. When the noble Lord has given me the satisfactory answers that he doubtless will to my questions, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.3 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I welcome a Bill at this time dealing with the problem of the taxi trade, but I regret that I am unable to muster much enthusiasm for this one. It is not so much what this Bill will do that I disagree with, although I will show later that I am rather worried about it; it is what
886
it clearly fails to do that upsets me. It is not often that we have the opportunity, either in this House or in another place, of discussing the taxi trade and I feel that this unique opportunity has been missed. I wish first to complain most bitterly about the narrowness of the drafting of the Long Title of this Bill. I should personally have wished to put down many Amendments in Committee; but because of the narrowness of the Long Title I shall presumably not be allowed to do so. One wonders how long it will be before this subject comes up again, and why the Government have missed this golden opportunity.
First, there is the question of cut-of-date legislation which, as is the case with most other subjects in this country, badly needs to be cleared up, clarified and redefined. Only one section of the 1831 Act, Section 35, is amended by this, Bill, and very properly. I wonder whether noble Lords have read Section 43 of that Act which is still in force. If I may, I will quote from it:
"In case any person shall actually pay to the driver of any hackney carriage, whether in pursuance of such agreement or not any sum exceeding his said proper fare, which shall have been demanded or required by such driver, the person paying the sum shall be entitled on complaint against such drivel before any Justice of the Peace to recover back the sum paid beyond the proper fare."
This section is still clearly in force.
Also in the 1831 Act are provisions for the feeding of horses by the police after vehicles improperly parked have beer removed. This procedure is very familiar to many of us: I am sure that many noble Lords will have from time to time suffered the indignity of having their cars towed away. But these days one is fortunate enough not to have to worry about the feeding of the horses of the vehicles then in the hands of the police. It seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous that provisions of the kind I have quoted from the 1831 Act are still in force. It would have seemed to me to be an absolutely perfect opportunity in Committee to put into this Bill provisions to repeal all of this totally useless and unnecessary remaining legislation. And there are other points., with which I will not bore the House in detail, derived from the London Hackney Carriage Act 1831, the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and

887
others, all of which could well have been repealed at this stage.
What is badly needed in this Bill is one clause repealing everything in these Acts which is outdated. Regrettably, it is not there; and, even more regrettably, I am advised that it cannot be put there in Committee by myself or by any other noble Lord because of the narrowness of the Long Title. This in my opinion is a bad mistake. From 1949 to 1954 there was a Working Party which reported to the Government on what actions should be taken. The actions that I have suggested were also included that Report. No action has been taken so far on this, and it now looks as if this opportunity is being missed again.
My Lords, let me turn now to what the Bill actually does. There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, so lucidly put it, three different points in this Bill, and I will, if I may, spend a few moments discussing this terrible problem of London Airport. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said—and I endorse this 100 per cent.—that we are talking about a tiny minority of taxi drivers in the London area. I do not wish to repeat this every time I am talking about them because, of course, the vast majority of taxi-drivers are scrupulous and honest in their dealings. I do not wish in any way to throw any bad light on them. I am concerned only with this tiny minority.
I returned from the Canary Islands three days ago and, having it in mind that I was going to speak on this Bill, I left the Europa Building at the Airport having decided that for the time being I was going to be a foreigner who did not speak a word of English. I saw facing me an enormous sign, which nobody could possibly miss, warning me about what was going to happen. Unfortunately, it was in English, and (as a "foreigner") I did not understand a word of it. I then went over to the foremost group of taxi-drivers standing around and I addressed one of them in Spanish. I was absolutely amazed when he replied to me in Spanish. This, I think, shows that it is such a lucrative business that time spent learning European languages and the cost of such courses is immediately reimbursed, at an enormous profit, for anybody who can speak the
888
slightest bit of a foreign language in the taxi trade at the airport.
I said, in admittedly rather bad Spanish, "I want to go to Bayswater". The leading taxi-driver turned to me and said, "Bayswater!" as if I had asked him for John o'Groats. Now I think that Bayswater is a fairly reasonable sort of place to want to get a taxi to, but I was made to feel, in my role as a visiting Spaniard, that Bayswater was quite out of the normal run of places to which people hiring taxis might wish to go. I was made to feel that I had asked for something quite exceptional, and that they were doing me an enormous favour if they could find anybody who was prepared to take me there. I was quoted—and I suggest that if anybody disbelieves me he should go and try it himself—a fare of £7 10s. 0d. from London Airport to Bayswater.
Would your Lordships just think for a moment what effect this experience would have on visiting tourists or businessmen? This situation is absolutely deplorable, and it must be prevented without further ado. I should like to see something a little more concise in the Bill about this matter. If I leave the subject there, I should like to have an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, when he replies, that in the shortest period of time there will be a definite tariff from London Airport to the centre of the West End and vice versa. I do not, within reason, care what the tariff is, but it must be a definite tariff so that people cannot be "taken for a ride".
I would suggest to your Lordships, and I am a fairly well-travelled man, that possibly one would have to go to the back streets of Naples, or to Beiruit, before one would be treated by a taxi driver in the way that this minority—I repeat "minority"—of taxi drivers treat foreign visitors to London Airport. It would also be a good idea if, when setting this tariff, the Government took into consideration what one pays in other European countries to travel from an airport to the centre of a town where the distance is approximately the same as it is from London Airport to the West End. I think they will find that even £3 10s. 0d. which is, I believe, the fare one is charged—that is if one is lucky and speaks English—is still excessive.

889
My Lords, I should like to turn to the part of the Bill relating to where cabs are allowed to park. I welcome everything which is contained in the Bill on this subject. I feel, however, that one thing has been left out, and I wonder whether it would be possible to insert it during the Committee stage. I refer to the case of an old lady, or somebody carrying a lot of parcels or suit cases, who wishes to embark or disembark when a taxi is standing in a road where there is a single yellow line. Under the present law, and under the law as it will be when this Bill becomes an Act, if a taxi driver should be one of the few that one finds these days with sufficient courtesy to walk to the side of the street and help an old lady into his taxi, or carry her bags, and he leaves his taxi unattended even temporarily, he is in breach of the law and could be fined. If this is the case—it may be that I have misunderstood the matter—I wonder whether it would be possible to have some wording in the Bill to allow a taxi driver so employed to leave his taxi unattended for a maximum period of five minutes, or some similar time, in a road where there is a single yellow line.
I come now to the question of minicabs. Here I am afraid that I find myself (I must state that I am speaking for myself on this subject and not for my Party) in disagreement with the Government and with what is in the Bill. In my experience mini-cabs provide an extremely good service in the Central London area; usually a better service than the licensed taxis. They are often considerably cheaper to hire, and one can nearly always obtain a mini-cab which is not the case with licensed taxis. It is argued that it is unfair to licensed taxi drivers if they have opposition from the mini-cabs, but I put it to your Lordships in this way. A licensed taxi driver can ply for hire and can also accept bookings over the telephone. A minicab driver cannot ply for hire and can accept bookings only on the telephone. It would appear to me that the boot is on the other foot, and that this is unfair to the mini-cab drivers rather than to the drivers of licensed taxis. There would be no such things as mini-cabs if there were no demand for them. If they did not make a profit, they would not exist. The taxi service, excellent as it
890
may be, is not sufficient to meet the demand in Central London in peak period and I feel that the mini-cabs offer a very useful service.
I agree that the use of words such as, "taxi", "cab", "for hire" on the cars while they are being driven around should not be allowed. I do not wish to see mini-cabs permitted to ply for hire. However to ban forms of advertising such as cards, and the placing of advertisements about mini-cabs above telephones and such things as that, would prevent minicab drivers from providing a valuable service. Even if this were done, the object would not be achieved, because although I am not in a particularly inventive frame of mind this afternoon, I am quite sure that I could think of other words not covered by the clause which would mean the same thing, and which, after a few months, the public would come to realise related to what are known as mini-cabs.
This brings me to the end of what I want to say about the Bill and I should like now, with your Lordships' permission, metaphorically to drive my taxi a little beyond the 6-mile limit, and discuss another aspect of the taxi trade in Central London which is not dealt with in the Bill. I mentioned that I propose to do this to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, so I suppose, to take the metaphor a little further, it might be said that the fare had been agreed.
Again, my Lords, I am talking about a tiny minority of London taxi drivers, not this time those at London Airport, but those who prey on tourists, fore goers and people from out of London who may be in Soho and the West End areas after dark. Unfortunately, there are certain night clubs and restaurants of not an entirely satisfactory character who outrageously advertise in two trade newspapers, one called the Steering Wheel and another called the Compendium, of which I have here a copy. They advertise that they will pay taxi drivers who deliver passengers to their premises a commission which in some cases goes up to £2 a head. I ask your Lordships to consider a party of five tourists—and when I say "tourists" I do not necessarily mean people who are not English; it could be a party from out of town—who are walking along a street in Soho after dark not knowing where to go, and a

891
taxi driver, blatantly and illegally, walks across the street to them, leaving his taxi unattended on a rank, and suggests to them that he knows a suitable place where he can take them for their evening's enjoyment. If these people are gullible enough to accept his invitation and get into the taxi, they will be taken to a night club where, because of the fact that the taxi driver would be paid £2 a head for the party, they will be subjected to a surcharge of £10 on their bill before they sit down to have a drink. This is not good for our image as a centre of tourism; it is not good for the entertainment business, and it should be stamped out.
Another point that I should like to raise is this. If taxi drivers driving around London produce two such parties a night, they are making £20 a night. This is not declared and not taxable, and the Inland Revenue are losing, too.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot accept that this is not taxable. If it is income from a man's occupation, it is taxable. What the noble Lord means is that they are cheating the Inland Revenue, just as burglars do, by not returning their income.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I bow to the noble Lord's wisdom, because that is entirely the case. Not only are tourists receiving extremely bad value, but to some extent this is hurting first-class establishments who would otherwise have had the patronage of these people. The police seem to be either unable or unwilling to make arrests. In recent weeks I have spoken to many members of the police force in the Central London area on this subject. I received the same answers from all of them. They said that if they made an arrest on these grounds, the offending taxi driver would be fined £1 and that it would be a waste of time for everybody, because £1 does not constitute a fine which would hurt a man who has made £10 in committing the offence.
I wonder whether the noble Lord can answer this question? Can he tell me how many prosecutions of taxi drivers there have been recently for this kind of offence, and what fines were imposed or other action was taken against them? If, as I suspect, the number of prosecutions
892
and the amount of fines both prove to be ludicrously small, I suggest the law must be changed. This has been brought to the attention of the authorities on numerous occasions.
There is a nightclub in Soho, which has an excellent reputation, which has been in existence for many years and which has over 100 Members of your Lordships' House as members, called the Gargoyle Club. This is built on the site where King Charles II went to visit a wench by the name of Nell Gwynne. I believe that the wenches are still as beautiful these days, although not patronised by Royalty to the same extent. The owner of this establishment has written 37 letters in the last four years to various bodies, including the police, trade unions and his M.P., and I should like to quote two of the replies which he received.
The first reply is from the Speaker of another place. It is dated October 21, 1965. It says:
"Dear Mr. Jacobs, I have now heard from the Assistant Commissioner about the matter you raised by letter of the 9th August. I give below the relevant extract:
'I am now in a position to tell you that as a result of police action to deal with alleged touting by cab drivers in the West End in the vicinity of night clubs and licensed restaurants 11 cab drivers have been prosecuted. Touting now seems to have decreased, but its financial rewards are such as to make its complete elimination virtually impossible'."
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, the noble Lord has bored us stiff for nearly three-quarters of an hour. I beg to move that he be no longer heard—
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I very much regret having bored the noble Lord. I hope that I am not boring your Lordships' House; if I am, I will certainly give way.
Another reply which the same gentleman received was from his Member of Parliament, Mr. Smith, enclosing a copy of a letter to Mr. Smith from New Scotland Yard, dated September 13, 1966. It says:
"Dear Mr. Smith, In the absence of Sir Joseph Simpson on leave I am writing in reply to your letter of September 1st about taxi-drivers.
It is good to read of your high opinion of cabbies because we do try to maintain a high standard in licensing them. It is inevitable,

893
however, that some will turn out to be unscrupulous and will take advantage of foreign visitors. Some of the lazy ones are apt to hang about London Airport in the hope of getting a foreign fare who may be gulled into paying as much for one journey as two more sophisticated fares will pay for two journeys from the airport to the West End of London. You may know that the legal requirement for a journey of more than six miles is that driver and fare shall come to terms and the 'clock record' does not have to be used.
We are alive to this and have been hoping to reach agreement with the cab firms on a standard fare but have so far failed to negotiate a figure that would be satisfactory to us.
Your constituent's complaint about the 'flags down' technique is the first of this nature for some time though that is not to say it doesn't happen …"
My Lords, I have here copies of 33 letters which have been sent to the Commissioner of Police, at Scotland Yard, or West End Central police station during the course of five months, and it is amazing to me that the police should reply that this is the first complaint of this kind, because it is obviously not so. I can send the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the correspondence if he so wishes.
To summarise, I should like to know how many convictions have taken place in the last three years and what fines and penalties were imposed. I put it to your Lordships that the police owe a duty to the public to enforce the law as it now stands and if it is unenforceable, for any reason whatsoever, it should be changed. There are also taxi-drivers every night in Soho and the West End of London blatantly outside their cabs soliciting for prostitutes. Probably a few cases of prosecution for living off immoral earnings might be the way to stop this practice.
4.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I rise to give a general welcome to the Bill, and perhaps I may do so more briefly than the noble Lord who has just sat down. It should be stated, however, that it is a great pity, after so much hard work has been done by various Committees since 1949, that only this limited Bill could be introduced. Still, I suppose one must be thankful for small mercies.
The Bill is permissive, in that it authorises the Secretary of State to make Orders, subject to the Negative Resolution pro-
894
cedure, regarding the fixing of fares. This is to be welcomed and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his explanation of the way this may be implemented. Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State to extend the limit of six miles, which was fixed in the London Hackney Carriage Act 1853, as the distance which the driver of a cab is by law obliged to undertake. As my noble friend Lord Derwent indicated, this provision was inserted in the law in 1853 when the sole means of locomotion for cabs was the horse, and this limit was considered to be a reasonable distance before the horse—and probably the driver, too—needed rest or refreshment. This; limit is now completely obsolete and arbitrary, and has no relevance to present conditions, and I am glad to see that the Secretary of State will have power to extend it.
This, presumably, will deal quite satisfactorily—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is going to deal satisfactorily—with the position regarding journeys to and from Central London and London Airport, which other noble Lords have mentioned. This is fine, so far as it goes, but there is one anomaly which I should like the Minister of State to consider. If he cannot give me an answer to-day, perhaps he will be able to do so later by correspondence.
This is a problem which arises, I imagine, frequently. I know it happened to me just before Christmas, when I got into a cab in central London not far from your Lordships' House and proceeded to a point not beyond the 6-mile limit, dropped off a friend—it happened to be a very attractive young lady—and returned immediately in the same cab to my flat in central London. Admittedly, it makes a total journey of more than six miles. The trip I made happened to be in the evening, and certainly did not take anything like an hour, so it did not fall within the other criterion Admittedly, the driver is not obliged, as the law now stands, to undertake the journey; and admittedly, I did not specifically state to the driver at the time—this was probably my fault—that I was going to this point, which happened to be just the other side of the Zoo, and back again to central London. But I should certainly have thought that there

895
was a case for fixing the fare at something approaching the meter fare, because one had hired the cab in central London and was returning in it to central London, which would certainly assist the driver in getting another fare. I am quite sure that if one hires a cab in central London and goes to somewhere far out, like Golders Green or Wimbledon, and pays the driver off there, the driver may have difficulty in finding a fare, but if he drops you in Sloane Street the same factor does not arise.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble Viscount tell me whether in the instance he speaks of he paid a fare higher than was shown on the clock?—because, if so, he could easily have avoided that by paying the fare on the clock when he arrived at his first destination and then going back and again paying the fare on the clock. The driver would have had to take him, because it would have been within the compellable limit of six miles or one hour.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: Unfortunately, I was not aware that 11s. 6d. was the magic sum at the time. I am afraid I got caught. This is something which perhaps some of the foreign visitors and non-English-speaking visitors mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would "cotton on to". Unfortunately I was talking English at the time.
Clause 3 is, of course, most welcome, and rectifies an obvious anomaly in the existing law. In order to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I do not know whether it would be possible for hire cabs to use parking meter bays, obviously on payment of the appropriate fee, at the request of a passenger who might have some package to collect at a shop or who has to pick up a sick or infirm person. The noble Lord mentioned this point. I do not know whether it is legal now, or whether it will be possible under the Bill as now drafted.
There was a lot of controversy in another place over Clause 4, which deals with private hire cars and so-called minicabs. I fully support what the Government are trying to do to distinguish between them. For the rest, we must await the Report of the Maxwell Stamp Committee, the announcement of which was made by Her Majesty's Government
896
on June 9, 1967, and the members not appointed until October 26. I understand from the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill that the first meeting of the Committee took place in November. I hope it will not be too long before they are in a position to report, and that no great delay will elapse between the Report of the Committee and the introduction of comprehensive legislation to deal with the problems of the cab industry in London. This was a point made by other noble Lords, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. In fact, he devoted the great burden of his speech to points which will be considered by the Maxwell Stamp Committee and which, as he pointed out, arise from the Long Title of the Bill.
The spokesman of Her Majesty's Government in another place gave figures which indicate that the number of licensed cabs on the roads in the London area has been steadily increasing since 1960. This is in spite of the increase in mini-cabs and is most encouraging, and will, I hope, go a long way to meet the point. The figure for 1966, according to the Government spokesman in another place, was 7,764. The only point which disappoints me is that not one of them ever seems to be plying for hire in my direction on a rainy night.
4.35 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I suppose it is only natural, when we get a Bill like this, that everyone wants to extend the scope of the Bill and the few cases of abuse come much more to the fore. I congratulate the Government on bringing in this Bill, limited though it is, because it is long overdue. The London taxi is part of London's transport, and because it is at the service of the public, over a period of years it has been subject to considerable restriction—restriction, that is, for the protection of the public. The standard of the vehicle, and even the type of the vehicle, is controlled by the Metropolitan Police. The driver is licensed by the Metropolitan Police.
No one has spoken to-day of the tremendous training—almost 18 months' full-time training—that has to be undergone to become a London taxi driver. There is no Member of your Lordships'

897
House who has ever picked up a taxi and not been able to go wherever he wanted to go without having to tell the driver the way. In fact, I should not be surprised if many of your Lordships, like myself, when you do not know exactly where it is you want to go, take a taxi. As I say, the training takes 18 months, and during the course of the training every 28 or 56 days the applicant for a licence is subject to tests, apart from his tests of knowledge and the rest, and in addition he has to take a public service vehicle driving test.
Perhaps I may deal, also, with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in regard to one or two taxis which seem to operate in a part of London which I am much too poor to frequent. The licence of the taxi driver can be withdrawn at any time by the Commissioner of Police if he considers the driver not to be a fit and proper person to have it. I was surprised that the noble Lord said the police had given him the impression that a prosecution, even involving a small penalty, was not a deterrent to a taxi diver, because in determining who is a fit and proper person, so far as the Commissioner of Police is concerned the number of convictions for any type of offence is taken into account.
The taxi driver, if he has his licence withdrawn, has no court of appeal. This is one of the points made by London taxi drivers. Due to their training, and this control of the London taxi drivers, I feel that they have the right of protection against what they think is the unfair competition of the mini-cab. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seems to favour the mini-cab. But their drivers are not licensed to carry passengers, their vehicles are not subject to tests or to standards, and, while there are a number of minicab firms which are quite above suspicion, many of them are operating with drivers who are driving in the evening after they have done a full day's work, and are not of the standard of driving that they should be in order to carry fare-paying passengers. Often they are doing it with their own cabs and are not insured for carrying passengers. I feel that the London taxi driver is entitled to protection against this unfair competition.
There is one point I should like to raise in regard to the Bill, and it is this. I am not too sure that Clause 4(2) offers
898
sufficient protection to the London taxi driver against advertisement. However, I hope that my noble friend Lord Stonham will look at this point, and if it is possible to put down an Amendment I should like to put one down. I appreciate that it is very difficult, and it may be that the noble Lord feels that the point is in a way covered by the clause of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, referred to the clause on control of licensing of London taxis. I agree with him entirely that it is not a matter for the Ministry of Transport—I thought that that point had died a natural death a long while ago. But there is, I think, room for reconsideration as to whether in present-day circumstances the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office are the right persons to control them. As I said earlier, taxis are part of London's transport. There is talk of London transport being passed to the Greater London Council. The Greater London Council is now the traffic authority for London, and it might be a good idea if the taxi, too, so far as the licensing of taxi cabs is concerned, was transferred to the Greater London Council. After all, the licensing authority for taxis outside the London area is the local authority. True, the job is not so onerous there as it is in London, where, after all, there are over 12,000 drivers and over 7,000 cabs, and 40 per cent. of the cabs are those of owner-drivers, to whom Lord Derwent referred. I congratulate the Government on the Bill. Although it is limited in scope, I think it is urgently necessary, and I am glad that it is having a good reception this afternoon.
4.42 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, replies, I should just like to ask him one question. I welcome the Bill. I approve of every word he said. But there seems to me to be one rather exasperating thing in our otherwise excellent taxi service in London. It is that too often taxis, with their "For hire" light on, pass you when you hail them. I suggest to the noble Lord that he might consider putting an Amendment into this Bill to say that a taxi driver, if he is going home, should switch this light out, but that if he has it switched on he ought to stop when he is hailed. In the last six months taxi

899
after taxi has passed me with lights blazing showing they were for hire, simply because the drivers wanted to go home. All I am suggesting is that, if they want to go home, they should switch their light out.
VISCOUNT MILLS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene for a moment. Having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I thought that it could be construed as an attack on taxi drivers generally. I have used taxi drivers a great deal in the last few years, and I have never once experienced any unfairness or any discourtesy. I take my hat off to the taxi drivers of London, and I was very sorry to hear Lord Moynihan's speech.
4.44 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was very pleased to hear that tribute from the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, to the—perhaps he would agree with me in saying this—generations of London taxi drivers to whom we all owe a great deal. When I heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Lindgren, I thought that I myself had been somewhat remiss in not enlarging on that point with some emotion myself, but I rather felt that your Lordships would prefer that I dealt strictly with the Bill. But I am very glad that the last three speakers have emphasised that point, with which I very much agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that one exasperating thing he found in an otherwise excellent taxi service was that sometimes you found a taxi, with its "For hire" light blazing, dash by you and take no notice of being hailed. I can only say that anyone who will do that to Lord Boothby must be lacking in discernment. I have had it happen to me with a bus, but not with a taxi. But whether or not we can have a by-law or an Amendment on this point is certainly not a matter to be dealt with now; it may well be a matter for consideration by the Committee.
My noble friend Lord Lindgren rightly referred to the long training needed by a taxi driver, to the immense knowledge of London he has to acquire, and to the many and important restrictions and regulations which taxi drivers have to observe. Their knowledge of London is
900
quite remarkable. I confess that, as a guest, of course, I lunch or dine at a number of clubs. In most cases I say to the taxi driver, "Such-and-such a club", and he takes me there, even if I have not a clue where it is within half a mile or so. It is very much like the typist who said she had had a wonderful holiday in Majorca, and when asked where it was she said, "I don't know. We went by air". It is very much the same with a good many people who take a ride in a London taxi. It is a very wonderful service. Some points of dissatisfaction have rightly been mentioned in the debate. I think that the great majority of taxi drivers and taxi owners would agree that it is right to raise these points. They are as anxious about them as anyone else, but it is just as well that we recognise the great value of this service. The taxi drivers, among many things in this great City, are almost unique in the world, and it is important that we should recognise it.
My noble friend Lord Lindgren doubted whether Clause 4 was protection enough. I am convinced that it is in respect of the job which it sets out to do, which is to make it as sure as it is humanly possible to ensure that a private hire car cannot be flagged down in the street in the belief that it is a licensed taxi cab. That, I believe, the Bill achieves. Other matters—such as the relationship over the whole field of cars that you pay to take you about, between licensed cabs and private hire cars—I think should be properly left to the Committee which is examining these matters and which will consider evidence from both sides.
The noble Viscount, Lord Furness, put what was to me a very fine point. I will certainly write to him about it—I refer to the "there and back" journey—but I would say this. I would certainly regard the charging of a higher fare, even without this Bill, as an unwarrantable imposition, and certainly when the Secretary of State frames his regulations under the Bill I will do my best to ensure that this sort of thing could not happen and that there will be no dubiety about it.
I was very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, welcomed the Bill, as did the noble Viscount and my noble friend. I think it has been given a general welcome. Indeed, I am sorry we have

901
been so long in bringing it in. The noble Lord mentioned that in the dim dear days almost beyond recall, when his noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor was Home Secretary, he thought there was a draft Bill in the Home Office. I can only say that this was one of my early "loves" when I went there. I do not remember ever seeing such a draft Bill. But he is quite right: this is a very difficult matter. I mentioned when I introduced the Bill that it was two years ago when I personally met a committee when there was a hope of a Private Member's Bill being introduced by my late noble friend Lord Monslow. We in fact agreed about it round the table in my room, and the Bill was going to be introduced in another place. But three or four days later—no! It was nothing to do with the Home Office; it was nothing to do with my noble friend. But these things happen, and so it was delayed for another year.
The noble Lord asked about the London Joint. Consultative Committee, and asked whether we were going to put a bomb under it. He must surely know that the London Joint Consultative Committee is expressly precluded from considering fares. Fares do not come within its remit at all, so of course it does not consider them. Applications for increases in fares will continue to be dealt with in exactly the same way as in the past. In fact we have not had an application from the trade for an increase in fares since 1964, so naturally we have not had to consider it. The London Joint Consultative Committee will continue to consider matters of interest to the trade. There have been no meetings recently because the trade have not suggested any points that they wish to have discussed within that Committee.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us briefly what are the functions of this Consultative Committee?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is a Joint Consultative Committee consisting of all sections of the trade—those who own cabs, those who own and drive cabs, and those who merely act as journeymen cab drivers—together with Home Office officials, who sit to discuss matters of joint interest to the cab trade, other than fares. There are many matters of interest to them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, do I take it then that the Committee never takes a decision about anything? Do the members only consult?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if this Committee took a joint decision which required either administrative action or legislation then it would be highly likely that action would be taken. This surely is current normal practice: when a Committee is appointed which advises the Secretary of State, the decisions as to action must be taken by him.
LORD DERWENT: Certainly; I agree.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a question which I think probably every noble Lord wanes to know about, and that is with regard to the new charges for the longer journeys. We intend to arrange for the new rates to be shown on the meter, and I think the noble Lord was tinder some misapprehension when he said we must ensure that people cannot be "taken for a ride." What he meant was that we must ensure that people can be taken for a ride and not overcharged; and in order to ensure that, we shall not fix a fare from London Airport to Bayswater or Hyde Park Corner. The fare will be on the meter, and in due course people who do that journey often will know how much it will cost.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, also asked about the transfer of responsibility to the Ministry of Transport. I must confess that the mere suggestion came us a great shock to me. I really cannot tell him anything in addition to what the then Home Secretary said, in reply to a Question some considerable time ago, which was referred to the Prime Minister on March 9, saying that departmental responsibilities will remain as they are until after the Departmental Committee's report is complete, which will be some time hence. We shall then be in a position to consider what, if any, changes are necessary.
With regard to the 6-mile limit, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that this was nonsense. He said it was related to the days of the horse-drawn vehicle—and it certainly was. But the 6.-mile limit is now also a protection to the cab driver.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I did not think I had explained myself very well. I still think it is nonsense. This limit was made for the horse, because in those days a 6-mile journey took a considerable time. It cannot really be said to apply to the cab driver now, because a 6-mile journey, even in London, takes very little time indeed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, there are many areas in London to-day, and many times of the day, when a 6-mile journey takes just as long in a cab as it would with a horse.
LORD BOOTHBY: In fact it takes much longer.
LORD STONHAM: It is certainly much quicker to travel by bicycle; and in some instances it would be even quicker to walk. The point with regard to the protection of the cab driver is a valid one. If he has to go from Victoria to Muswell Hill, which is about six miles, he has to go through a great deal of traffic and possibly come back again. If he is towards the point where he has to hand over to his next driver—because as your Lordships know drivers share cabs—it would be proper for him to refuse.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made the point that we should repeal virtually everything in these old Acts that was obsolescent.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I said "obsolete", not "obsolescent".
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. In fact that is what I meant to say, because I know that that is what he said. But there are many places in England where there are still horse-drawn vehicles plying for hire—for instance, the front at Blackpool, which is not quite so fashionable as Bayswater. It is because some of these old Acts still have a purpose that they are not repealed.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I thought I was right, and I find that I am. I see that the City of London is mentioned twice in the Long Title of the Bill. This is a Bill for the City of London, and I do not think there are any horse-drawn vehicles plying for hire in the City of London. A few years ago, in Hyde Park, there may have been a couple of
904
what the Indians call "gharries", but I do not know whether there are any left to-day. In any case, that is surely an entirely different matter.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it would be wholly unsafe for anyone in this House to say that anything had died out in London. The reason for the twice-repeated mention of the City of London is because this Bill applies to London cabs, which means not only the Metropolitan Police District but the City of London. That is the reason why we have not gone into a great many of the matters covered in other Acts, and also because it would be wrong, in a short Bill of this kind, with its few limited, though useful, objectives, to undertake a whole review of the Hackney Carriage Acts.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised a point on parking. He will be aware that Clause 3 allows taxis to park in meter bays, which they may not do at present. When he spoke about "five minutes on the yellow line" I am sure he did not mean—and if I am wrong he can say so—that he wanted the parking regulations to be altered. If he did, I would tell him that that is a matter for the Ministry of Transport. But I think he was talking about an alteration in the restrictions on hackney carriages being left unattended. If that is so, there would be no danger of action being taken in the instance he cited, namely of a cab driver helping his fare—perhaps an old lady or somebody with a child—and who for that reason has to leave his cab unattended for a short period. No policeman would be so foolish as to act in those circumstances; and even if he did, I am sure that no conviction would lie.
The noble Lord referred, graphically and I am afraid accurately, to the business of a few taxi-drivers who ply this extraordinary trade in a small part of the West End of London and who receive payment. There is no secret about it. They are advertised in some papers. This is one of the advertisements. It says here:"—pays you 30/-per person that you bring along". Certainly it is a very unpleasant sort of business and it is difficult to see how a taxi-driver can conduct such a business and at the same time comply with the conditions of his licence. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan said, quite rightly,

905
that it was not good for the country's image, and it is not good for the catering and entertainment business. But he also said, which was not correct, that the police were unable or unwilling to make arrests. That is not so.
I will now give him the facts for which he asked. First, with regard to the law, there is no specific offence of "touting" in the London Hackney Carriage Acts, and in fact police normally take action under Section 33 of the London Carriage Act 1843—we still need some of these old Acts—which states:
"Every driver who shall ply for hire elsewhere (not including private property) than at some standing or place appointed for that purpose commits an offence."
The penalty is £10. It became £10 from January 1 this year, under the 1967 Criminal Justice Act.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think it was the Criminal Law Act, but I may be wrong.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Viscount will look, I think he will find it is in Schedule 5 of the Criminal Justice Act. Attempts have also been made by police to report drivers "touting" in exactly the circumstances described by the noble Lord for the offence of "misbehaviour" under another section of the 1843 Act, Section 28, which provides a punishment for every driver who during his employment shall be drunk or make use of any insulting or abusive language or shall be guilty of any insulting gesture or any misbehaviour. The penalty is £3 or two months' imprisonment; and this was not increased, the noble Viscount will be glad to know, under the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It says so in my notes and I do not have to rely on memory. Unfortunately—perhaps I should not say unfortunately—the courts have taken the view that "touting" in the circumstances described is not misbehaviour, so the police drew a blank over that. The noble Lord asked me how many prosecutions there have been for this offence. In the whole of the Metropolitan Police district in the first nine months of 1967, 72 cab drivers were reported for "plying elsewhere"—that is the offence. Of more immediate relevance to Lord Moyniham's point, there were 27 cases reported at the West End Central police station alone. These
906
resulted in 7 convictions, 9 cautions, 2 dismissed, 3 no further action and 3 awaiting decision of the court.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I am extremely impressed by the figures the noble Lord has given, but I wonder whether he agrees that it would be perfectly possible to have 27 prosecutions every evening. Could he hold out some hope that the police might be instructed by the Home Office to conduct some sort of campaign to try to eliminate this practice? I wonder, further, if he would give an answer to the question as to whether he feels it would be possible to prosecute cab drivers directly soliciting for prostitutes under the law to do with living off the immoral earnings of such prostitutes.
LORD STONHAM: This would be entirely a matter for the courts. I cannot give assurances or judgments on hypothetical cases like that. It would be a matter for the police, and for consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions. If he was satisfied that a prosecution should take place, the court would decide. No one, I am sure, could give an answer to the noble Lord on a question like that. On the other point, so far as we are aware, no offence of this kind has been committed so far this year, since the £10 fine began. Therefore it appears to be having some effect. The noble Lord asked whether I would not agree that 27 offences are committed every night. I would not agree. I do not know that. The noble Lord may be right, but I do not think so. I do not think it can be happening on that scale.
LORD MOYNIHAN: If the noble Lord would give me one evening of his time, any time he chooses, I would prove it to him.
LORD STONHAM: I think the police always do this job better than Members of your Lordships' House, and it can be safely left to them.
There is one very important matter which I have not yet mentioned. This is the most important sanction of all. Under Section 30(1) of the London Cab Order 1934, the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has the power to revoke or suspend a cab driver's licence if he is considered unfit to hold such a

907
licence. Of course, this is a serious step, and it must not be taken lightly, for it means taking a man's living away from him. But where a driver is persistent in the type of behaviour associated with "touting", then consideration is given to his suitability to hold a licence. In accordance with this policy, two drivers had their licences revoked or suspended last year. It is not that the fines are negligible.
I know that the noble Lord said this to the best of his opinion, but it is quite untrue that the police are unable or unwilling to make arrests. It is an extremely difficult matter, but the fact is that they are succeeding. They are prosecuting. I would suggest to the noble Lord that in raising the matter as he has in this way it may well be that he has achieved, quite rightly, the objective he had in mind of bringing this unhappy practice to public notice. He may also persuade some people who go to these clubs in this way what enormous sums they are paying if the clubs can afford to pay the taxi driver £2 a head. I am sorry about the 37 letters from the manager of the Gargoyle.
LORD MOYNIHAN: They were from the manager of the Gargoyle and other West End establishments.
LORD STONHAM: I should be very glad if the noble Lord would send them to me, and I will do my best to see that the matter is cleared up. I have tried to answer all the questions. I am grateful for the general welcome your Lordships have given and the interest shown in the Bill. I hope that this will continue during the remaining stages, and that they will not be so strenuous that they take a long time to get through.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.9 p.m.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ARINGER): My Lords. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act,
Provisional Collection of Taxes Act,
Capital Allowances Act.
House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.