Lords Sitting of 9 July 1968

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

CHILDREN'S ANORAK CORDS
LORD CROOK: 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 whether they are aware that at least four young children have died during recent months from strangulation by the strong cords in the hoods of their anorak garments and that a number of others have narrowly escaped death during play; whether their attention has been called to the urgent advice of hospital doctors that all parents should at least remove immediately the toggles on the cords and preferably replace the nylon cords by light tape; and whether, since large numbers of these garments are worn by children and sold by many stores, they will support the request of the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents that the British Standards Institution should examine this matter urgently.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I have read the reports of these tragic accidents with deep regret. Three of them occurred when the cords on the hoods of the children's anoraks became trapped on joints or other parts of the slides on which the children were playing. In the fourth case, the child's anorak hood became caught on barbed wire at the top of a garden fence. The Home Office has already asked the garment manufacturers, as a matter of urgency, to consider adopting certain safety modifications proposed by a consultant pædiatrician. In addition, the British Standards Institution are reviewing the British Standard for children's slides. Meanwhile, I would urge parents to
790
adopt the safety precautions proposed by my noble friend, that is, to remove the toggles and to replace the nylon cord by very light; tape: this, preferably, should not be threaded right round a e hood, but stitched to the front of it on each side.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which is satisfactory at least so far as it goes? May I ask him if he would be good enough to inform me what the consultant pædiatrician reported?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the consultant pædiatrician at the Derbyshire Children's Hospital suggested that draw cords around the hoods of children's anoraks should be abandoned, that the breaking strain of the cords should not exceed 5 lb. and that the cord should simply be sewn on the side of the face-piece without taking it right round the hood.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend again for that helpful answer? May I ask him whether he is aware that one great firm, the head of which is a Member of this House, were good enough to take all the toggles off in one day and subsequently redesigned their anoraks, and whether he is aware that others are not doing that? Would my noble friend take the necessary steps to further impress upon the trade that they must do this or alternatively the Government will take further steps?
LORD STONHAM: My Lord;, I am glad that Marks and Spencer have produced an elasticated face-piece and also, much more important, that they have given instructions for all toggles to be removed from the cords of anoraks for children aged three to ten. I hope that other retailers will follow suit.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, while that is very good so far as British manufacturers are concerned, may we have an assurance from the Government that they will stop the importation from Hong Kong and other places of anoraks made in this way with toggles?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot give an assurance that we will stop the importation of anoraks, but we have already been in touch with the Hong Kong Government Office and have asked

791
them to draw the attention of manufacturers there to the modifications which we insist should be made in the interests of safety.
LORD CROOK: My Lords—if your Lordships do not mind my persisting; I have been following this question for some months—my noble friend referred to the British Standards Institution. Is there now a specification? If so, is that about to be altered? Is any action being taken and is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, with which I am connected, taking any action to help?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords ROSPA has approached the women's panel of the British Standards Institution. I understand that there is no British Standard for anoraks, but if the B.S.I. decide to produce a standard for anoraks I am sure that it must include safety factors of the kind we now have under consideration.
LORD CROOK: May I thank my noble friend.

FATSTOCK GUARANTEE SCHEME PAYMENTS
2.41 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: 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—

1. Whether it is possible to improve the method by which the second payment under the 1967–68 Fatstock Guarantee Scheme is made;

2. What is the cost of sending out the numerous small cheques which are sent out under present arrangements.]

LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we have carefully considered the possibility of improving the method of second payments which may become due to presenters of cattle or sheep under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. Unfortunately the cost of linking the individual transactions
792
throughout the year, so as to make it possible to pay by a single cheque to each presenter, would be nearly double that under the present arrangements, which amounts to some £64,000.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that there must be something wrong with a system under which eight cheques, varying in amount from 8s. 7d. to £1 7s. 9d., are sent to pay a total sum of £7 5s. 5d.? This has been my own experience, and I understand that it is not at all unusual.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree that there is something wrong with the present system, but there would be even more difficulties, and they would be costly difficulties, under any conceivable alternative. This year payment was a particular nuisance because the total sum for presenters for second payment was small. But I am given to understand that the National Farmers' Union have looked into this and are satisfied that the present arrangements are the most economic that can be devised.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his second answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that, while I warmly support the idea of payment on account, when the system becomes so tenuous that eight payments have to be made, it really makes it look ridiculous. It is hard to believe that the system could not be improved. Would he not agree that further thought should be given to this matter?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the difficulty here, I understand, is that of registration of what I have called the presenters. The trouble is that at least a quarter of them are middlemen and wholesalers, and it is not easy to maintain throughout the year the type of register that would be necessary. But if the noble Lord has any bright ideas, I can assure him that we should welcome them.

INVERGORDON DEVELOPMENT AND LAND RECLAMATION
2.44 p.m.
LORD BURTON: 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, in view of the report of Mr. W. Munro, Q.C., to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the proposed developments at Invergordon recommending that no time should be lost in making a survey of the possibility of reclaiming of Nigg Bay for industrial use, what action they have taken, or propose to take, on this recommendation.]
TILE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has drawn the attention of Ross and Cromarty County Council to Mr. Munro's recommendation, and they will no doubt include it in their consideration of the long-term pattern of land use in the area in the light of the Holmes Group Report.
The noble Lord will also probably be aware of the announcement at Inverness yesterday, on behalf of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, that they are to make preliminary surveys into the potential for reclamation in various parts of their area. I have no doubt that they will bear in mind Mr. Munro's recommendation.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lard for that reply, may I say that I am not sure whether I showed him this answer in the Scotsman, or whether he leaked it to the Scotsman yesterday.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the first part of what the noble Lord says is perfectly correct. The noble Lord did draw my attention to the report in the Scotsman. The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's observation is that I did not leak anything to the Scotsman either yesterday or at any time in the past. I hope that I shall not do anything of that kind in future.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would the appropriate department of Her Majesty's
794
Government copy this excellent enterprise of the Scots and, now that the cost of land is so high, make a survey of British coastal areas which could be reclaimed? If the Dutch can do it, we can do it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have no doubt that if the noble Lord puts down a Question on that subject some other Member of Her Majesty's Government will give him a reply.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if this reclamation of the seashore proves to be successful in Scotland, would my noble friend seriously consider applying it to the coast of Essex when he comes to consider the question of Stansted Airport?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I thought that my previous Answer made it clear that the responsibility of the Scottish Office does not extend so far South.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.45 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 71 [Control of the use of large goods vehicles]:
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 204.
Page 103, line 16, at end insert—
("() In granting a special authorisation the licensing authority may attach a condition permitting the authorisation to be transferred to one or more other persons.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 204. The object of this Amendment is to enable a licensing authority who make a special authorisation to permit the transfer of such an

795
authorisation to another haulier, for it is in effect the traffic that is being authorised or licensed rather than the haulier. Under the Bill, the consignor, or the haulier with the consignor's support, already has to prove that a particular traffic can be moved more efficiently by road than by rail. Therefore, once the decision is made and the special authorisation granted, there would appear to be no logical reason why there should be any concern about the particular road vehicle used or which user or haulier undertakes the carriage of the goods.
My Amendment seeks to provide this desirable flexibility. If one haulier can satisfy the licensing authority regarding speed, reliability and cost of transport for some particular long-distance traffic, there is no reason why another haulier should not be able to achieve the same target or performance. Apart from this, to my way of thinking, desirable flexibility, time and money could be saved, for a manufacturer might employ several hauliers for a certain type of traffic. With the possibility of transferability, only one application need be made instead of several. This transferability would eliminate the possibility of a farcical situation arising where the haulage contractor may be fully committed on a particular day and cannot, therefore, carry the traffic of a particular manufacturer. This is a point that I mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill. With the transferability of the authorisation, a manufacturer will be able to take advantage, without unnecessary procedure and delay, of hauliers' vehicles which are looking for return loads. Also it would have the effect that the number of emergency applications would be considerably cut down. For the reasons I have just given, I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is equating the traffic with the haulier. I wonder whether that is correct. We had a debate earlier, in this Part of the Bill, on the principle of quantity licensing, and it is perhaps a fortunate fact of life that not all people are equally competent; some hauliers are better than others. Under the Bill a haulier will be granted a licence. But the grounds for granting a special authorisation are that the applicant's road ser-
796
vice is superior to rail in terms of speed, reliability and cost. That is why he gets it. If authorisations, once granted, were transferable, they might fall into the hands of an operator whose service was not superior to rail in all these respects and who would not have been granted an authorisation had he applied directly to the licensing authority. This would be the situation: "A" would get it; "B" would not. This would weaken the system.
The procedures for obtaining special authorisations are not complicated and unopposed applications will be granted at once. There is also provision in Clause 75 for expedited grants of special authorisation in cases of emergency. This would be the situation. Shall we say that "A" dies; his widow sells the business and "B" takes over and "B", I am certain, would get the expedited grant of special authorisation, particularly in a situation where the railways in the previous application had not objected or if their objection had been lost on appeal. Absence of any right to transfer licences should not therefore lead to any considerable inconvenience or delay. This is what the Government believe.
The noble Lord will perhaps agree that there is nothing new in preventing the transfer of licences. Section 179(2) of the 1960 Act forbids the transfer or assignment of "A", "B" and "C" licences except in special cases—for example, death or bankruptcy of the holder—for which regulations may provide; and Clause 86 of the Bill is based on this provision. I think that the point the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has raised is an important one, but I think it is true to say that the authorisation is granted to an applicant and not to a business. But if the new applicant for the same business is a man who is known to be competent, or can prove to the licensing authorities that he is competent—particularly if in the past no opposition has been raised by the railway authorities or others —then I feel that no difficulty will arise from a reapplication for a new special authorisation.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I should have I thought, though, that in effect safeguards

797
could have been provided to ensure that "A" haulier, "B" haulier or "C" haulier, were of similar competence. The noble Lord also referred to expedited applications. This Amendment, if accepted, would in effect to some extent do away with, or reduce, the number of demands for an expedited application. But there is one point I should like to ask the Minister to consider. It is that because special authorisations will not be transferable from one operator to another, a separate authorisation will be needed by each individual haulier whom a transport user may from time to time employ, and each separate application will involve the user in supplying the haulier with information and in being ready, in case of objection by the N.F.C. or the Railways Board, to support the haulier with detailed evidence of the comparative benefits of the rail and toad alternatives. That is a point which the noble Lord did not cover in his original reply, and perhaps he might feel that on this latter point there is something further he could say.
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: I suppose that the situation which the noble Lord is putting forward to the Committee is the situation wherein, during the period of a licence, which may have run for three years, circumstances have changed. Shall we say that "A" has died and his widow wants to sell out to "B". Is the noble Lord considering a situation whereby the actual criteria of speed, reliability and so on, may have altered in the period between the granting of the authorisation and the transfer of the licence?
LORD MERRIVALE: No; I am considering a case where the manufacturer may have to deal with an extra one or two hauliers.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I understand the point of the noble Lord. I made a specific statement on behalf of my right honourable friend, and that is that in this particular case there is provision in Clause 75 for expedited grant of special authorisation in cases of emergency. Let us conceive of a firm which is using a certain haulier for its work, and for one reason or another this haulier goes out of business—he may die or anything may happen. But the customer, as I said earlier, is always right.
798
This is the basis of this particular clause of the Bill. I should have thought that the customer who had goods moved from his factory could in a case like this demand an expedited granting of a special authorisation to the new haulier who was proposing to take over or to the same haulier's business which had been taken over by someone else. This is a new concept which must be run in, and I think the noble Lord is quite right both to air this point and to alert the Ministry of Transport to the tact that a situation such as this might arise. But I think we are fully aware that situations like this can arise, and the expedited machinery under Clause 75, I am certain, would come into effect in these circumstances.
LORD MERRIVALE: I will not press the point any further. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has Just said. The only point where I think we differ is this. The noble Lord and the Government believe more in the existence of an expedited procedure being available, while I and the Transport Users' Joint Committee believe that there would be greater advantages in transferability.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Further information has just reached me, but could the noble Lord finalise his statement?
LORD MERRIVALE: I thought that the noble Lord had received a further note and had something further to add.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I have something rather interesting to add, but perhaps we could deal with it on the Motion, That Clause 75 stand part of the Bill. That might be helpful.
LORD MERRIVALE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.59 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 103, line 30, at end insert—
("It shall be the duty of each Licensing Authority to make recommendations to the Minister as to the classes of vehicle, as indicated in subsection 5(a)(ii) or as to the classes of goods as indicated in subsection 5(b), which shall be prescribed.")
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 205 standing in

799
my name. A number of industries are making representations to be exempted, in view of special circumstances, from the provisions of subsection (1) of this clause, as provided by subsection (5) which gives power to the Minister to make regulations to that effect in the case of a certain class of vehicle or class of goods. The purpose of my Amendment is to save time, for there are certain industries, or classes of vehicles, which by their very nature will always be more than likely to be granted applications, and therefore in their case the Minister would prescribe an exemption. By this Amendment I am asking that their special circumstances should be analysed beforehand by the licensing authorities. This provision should assist the Minister to reach a decision. Otherwise on what basis will he decide whether or not to exempt some particular industry? It is really on this point I am mainly moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord has raised the point, if I have grasped his intention correctly, that there are certain kinds of vehicles which from the nature of things will always be exempt. I think that in an earlier debate on Clause 71 vehicles for china clay transport were mentioned.
LORD MERRIVALE: And certain industries.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Those are in fact certain industries, are they not? I think this again is a commonsense proposal, but we believe that it is already covered by the Bill. Before making any exemption regulations under subsection (5) the Minister is required by Clause 90 (8) to consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit—I mean organisations like the National Farmers' Union, the China Clay Association and so on. These consultations will give interested parties a chance to make their views known.
But the Minister is not limited to taking advice only from representative organisations. He can consult with anyone who in his opinion could contribute to the discussion. Obviously licensing authorities will come into that category, not only when the specific question of exemptions is being considered but also generally about the way the licensing
800
system is operating. Indeed, as was pointed out in another place by my honourable friend the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the licensing authorities now take the opportunity in their annual reports to the Minister of commenting on aspects of the licensing system if it seems to them appropriate, and this will of course continue. There is a constant flow of information from the authorities to the Ministry about the working of the system. So we believe it is inappropriate to put a statutory duty on licensing authorities to make recommendations on a specific point to the Minister. They are doing so at the moment. If the noble Lord will be so kind as to raise the point on the Motion, That Clause 71 shall stand part I should like to make an important point which was missed because a certain Amendment fell without being moved.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that last remark. He does not feel that there should be a statutory requirement on the licensing authorities to analyse the various representations made. In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 71, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MERRIVALE: I am not quite sure what type of statement the noble Lord has in mind, but if he will make it I shall be delighted.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Really we are talking about simplifying the whole procedure and clearing out of the way at an early stage of the introduction of the operation of this Bill certain fields where in fact authorisations will be granted automatically and without any argument. There is a wide field where I am certain this will happen. My right honourable friend has already in mind that furniture removals, livestock, and traffic within and between offshore islands, and in particular the movement of roundwood, should be exempted from the machinery of quantity licensing, and this is the position before the Bill has become an Act and has come into operation. If this can be a token of future intentions I hope the Committee will accept it. We have said at an earlier stage

801
of the discussion, on the Part V Amendments, that we want to make this Bill work. Constant reference to specialised vehicles will not make it work. I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance that we shall be sensible on this matter.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thank the noble Lord for his remarks and for stating specifically the type of goods that will already be exempt from the Bill. If I understood him aright, in the regulations to be laid later there will be further exemptions.
LORD BURTON: I should also like to thank the Minister for the statement on goods to be exempted. I think it is disappointing that Amendments 202A and 203 were not moved. It may be felt that the Amendment we made to this clause on Wednesday night was adequate. I suspect, however, that this Amendment will not be acceptable in another place, and I feel that this clause should be further amended in detail in this House before we leave it. The noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, made a plea for the exclusion of china clay. I am sure that we on this side all agreed with him, but equally sure that we should not agree that china clay has any grounds for priority over agricultural produce, or fish, or any other perishables; and probably not over a good many other commodities as well.
We were grateful for small mercies extended in another place, as we were for the statement we had just now, and also for the extension of the 100-miles limit of radius, as opposed to where the lorry drives. But these points do not appear to be written into the Bill. I appreciate that they may be met by order by the Minister later, but a great many people would be happier if at least the question of the working out of the 100-mile limit were written into the Bill. I hope that before the Report stage the noble Lord will have further discussions with his friends in another place and will be able to persuade them to be rather more generous than they have been so far.
I understand it is the Government's hope that 10 per cent. of the road traffic will he transferred to the railway. I do not think they have ever denied that this will raise the cost of transport generally. I wonder how much of this 10 per cent. is, in any case, Government-controlled.
802
I suspect that quite a large proportion of the traffic concerned is coal and steel, and that could be transferred without all this machinery. Also I would like the noble Lord to consider the position of foodstuffs. I think they might come under the general category of perishables. But if they are not exempted, it will of course put up the cost, and that will automatically put up the cost of living generally. I feel that this point should be looked at in more detail before Report stage.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I ask the noble Lord one question? Is it not possible that industries situated in the extreme North of Scotland might suffer considerably under the provisions of this clause? I have in mind two in particular; one, the glass factory, Thurso Glass, situated at Wick, and the other the A.E.I. factory, which makes electric bulbs, situated at Buckie. If these are not exempted, as they may be, it seems to me that they will suffer considerably from the clause.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: May I turn first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde? I think he is worrying unduly about the situation of the firms he has mentioned. There are three freight liner terminals in Scotland, all of them a long way from the factories he mentioned, if my knowledge of the geography of Scotland is correct. Therefore I believe that the licensing authorities will not make any difficulties whatever for those firms. As I have said repeatedly, we hope to administer this Bill in a sensible way. We are not forcing people to transfer their goods to rail if the criteria that we have laid down in Clause 74(5)—speed, reliability and cost —are not met. Since, unfortunately, due to the problems that Scotland faces, the railway network is not as wide as in England I am quite certain that the licensing authorities to whom these firms will turn, or to whom their transport contractors will turn, will not in fact be stupid; they will make certain that the goods are transported in the most efficient way possible, efficiency being interpreted in the widest sense.
LORD STRATHCYLDE: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, taking his

803
last point first and working backwards, he raised the question of cost. I thought I tried to answer that on Amendment No. 202. I may not have convinced the noble Lord, but I did my best. I think we all accept that there will be some rise in cost. But we believe that the total cost to the nation will in fact, owing to the more efficient operating of the railways, be lessened by this procedure. History will prove it, but I believe that what I have said will be so; otherwise I should not be arguing it to-day.
Again, if we turn to the movement of steel, or of iron ore and coal, of course the noble Lord is right. I should not like to think that we are controlling the noble Lord, Lord Robens; but perhaps we may have some influence on his thinking; certainly the licensing authorities have the authority to influence him. I should imagine that these important bulk loads which are ideal for the railway system will go on to the railways, by which in the main they are now being transported, except in times of railway crisis such as the one we have just experienced. So again the Government will play their part; of that I am quite certain.
To move back a stage further in the noble Lord's argument, and relate this to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, which was not moved, again the Government have given their undertakings in the field of livestock. If it is felt that the movement of broccoli from Cornwall to London, for instance, is done more efficiently by road transport straight from the farm to Covent Garden, then I am certain that the licensing authorities will be convinced by the argument. We are not going to be doctrinaire. We do not want truck loads of broccoli standing in a siding on the way to London. No doubt that would lead to their decomposition. So this is a factor that will be argued with the licensing authorities, and I am certain that they will be easily convinced. I hope that I have answered the points raised by the noble Lord.
EARL BATHURST: In regard to the important pronouncement that the noble Lord has made, in particular to round-wood, about which I must declare an interest, can the noble Lord say that it will be possible for these bulk carrying
804
lorries, and also the type of lorry carrying the broccoli which he has just mentioned, to obtain a return load free of licensing, because so often it is the return load which makes possible the economy of the transport concerned—in fact the whole profit on the load? Will the noble Lord give sympathetic consideration to this problem? It may not be relevant to this clause or this Amendment, but it is a most important point for forestry owners and for perishable produce deliverers.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made this a strong point of the argument which he addressed to Amendment No. 202. This is something of which I know from personal experience. In Nottingham I had on my doorstep a strong branch of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and when I referred to freebooting I was thinking of the situation where lorry drivers, quite properly, look out for return loads when they have come to London from some remote part of the country. Under the new Bill return loads will be subject to quantity licensing and this, I should imagine, must affect the total cost of operation. I think the points made by noble Lords are valid in this case. We must see what the impact of this is in practice. I can only tell the Committee what is the intention. Return loads are a matter which I think must be worked out in practice, which cannot be ignored but which are subject, as I must tell the Committee, to quantity licensing.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Objections to grant of special authorisations]:
3.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 105, line 24, after ("Act") insert ("forthwith").
The noble Viscount said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak in general to all my Amendments. I should like to move them en bloc, because the overall object of the Amendments is to speed up the whole procedure for the granting or refusal of special authorisation by a licensing authority.

805
As the Bill is drafted, it is unnecessarily tardy. It could take well over a month, indeed up to 40 days, for the applicant for a licence to receive his authorisation, or indeed to have it refused.
We must remember that it is essential for industry to keep its costs to a minimum. Anybody who has exported anything knows that of equal importance is the necessity for a reliable and punctual delivery service. This is particularly important for our major export industries and for the heavy capital goods industries. Manufacturers of plant for the steel and non-ferrous metals industries have an output of £100 million a year. A high proportion of this is sold abroad. These manufacturers of plant are also key suppliers to the steel industry. As we all know, competition abroad is extremely acute, especially in the heavy plant industry, which includes electrical capital goods. The important thing in exporting is to keep to delivery dates. If you do not you will lose exports and will probably be subject to a penalty clause. It is therefore essential that there should be no undue delay by licensing authorities.
My experience is that local bureaucrats can be worse even than Whitehall. I rather fear that the growth of local bureacracy in this licensing procedure will result in great delays. For instance, as I have already said, it will certainly take over a month to obtain permission to send a load by road rather than by rail, or even by sea. Even if you then obtain permission, British Railways and the National Freight Corporation will have the right to appeal. This will presumably hang matters up still further. The trouble is that you cannot always tell. You might apply for a licence in regard to supplying some goods perhaps three or four weeks in advance, because you would know roughly when you are going to export them or when your customer wants them. But there are certain occasions when you will not know the exact date that the goods are required. They may be required in a great hurry, and then it is of course essential to speed up this process. Neither can the exact date when the goods are ready for transportation always be known. Many loads require transportation at very short notice. For instance, it has now become the fashion to have this "roll-on, roll-off" service. I cannot see how this can really
806
work with the delays as at present in the licensing system, because with the roll-on, roll-off service it is not really practicable to have forward planning of transport, and it is not therefore practical with this type of load, if you have the long procedure of this licensing system.
When we come to abnormal loads, we all know that the railways cannot handle them, but I am afraid that the licensing authority may decide that some abnormal load could be sent by rail, that could be taken to pieces and then be reassembled on the site. With the technical processes of manufacture to-day, it would be quite impracticable to reassemble these loads on the site; therefore, they have to go by road. I can give your Lordships plenty of instances where heavy loads have gone by rail or by sea and the cost has been far greater than by road.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I wonder whether the noble Lord would pardon me. He talks about these cargoes going by sea and he thought they might be transported cheaper by road. How do you get a lorry sailing across the Channel?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: As the noble Lord has asked it, I will give him an instance of some goods that went by sea. The Ministry of Transport recently refused permission for a heavy load to be transported by road; it had to be sent by sea. Of course, it was sent by road to the port of shipment, which was only a few miles. The total cost was £4,500, but of this £4,000 was the cost of the sea voyage down the coast. The transport by road would have cost £750. The firm giving that estimate is a firm called Ashmore, Benson, Pease and Company, Limited. I think I have answered the noble Lord in that example, and I could give him others, but I shall spare him that embarrassment.
I should be only too pleased to explain any of the Amendments in detail, but of course they are all the same in that they speed up this whole process of licensing. For instance, take Amendments 205B and 205C. When the body objects to the application for a licence for special authorisation, there is no reason why at the time of making the objection a statement should not be made as in paragraph

807
(a). There is equally no reason why the body should not submit a copy of the statement to the applicant. These Amendments try to speed up the process. I need not explain them any further than by saying that they are all for completely the same purpose. I would end by saying that it is of real importance, if you export anything, to speed the transport up, and I am afraid as the Bill is drafted transport will be retarded. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Before I answer the general argument of the noble Viscount, may I clear up one point? He mentioned "roll-on, roll-off" traffic, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland suggested that there were other ways of moving besides "roll-on and roil-off". The position is, and I said something like this rather earlier in to-day's discussion, that a journey involving a "roll-on, roll-off" ferry journey to Northern Ireland or to places abroad will be exempted from quantity licensing. What I said earlier was that the traffic between and within offshore islands will be exempted. I am not certain if Europe is an offshore island of this country, or if we are an offshore island of Europe, but whichever way it is the traffic is exempted from quantity licensing.
The noble Viscount has raised a point which enables me to state the view of the Government, which is in strong sympathy with what he has had to say. I do not quite know how the noble Viscount envisages the changeover from the present system of licensing to the system of quantity licensing, but I, at least, would have felt that there could not be a day when we change from the old system to the new one just like that. There must be a tapering in and a tapering out. Since the operation will be carried out by the same licensing authorities one can assume that, as sensible men dealing with the same problem, they will, in fact, produce sensible solutions. That is a hope, but I am certain it is not an irrational hope.
The noble Viscount expressed a fear that a new bureaucracy, not central but regional, would be created. Well, of course, the bureaucracy already exists. It is experienced and has a good reputation. We have, I think from the early 'thirties, attempted to control commercial
808
traffic on the road, and the same forms of machinery will be applied to it from now on as have been applied to it in the past. I think it is true to assume that sensible men will produce sensible solutions. But the Government have sympathy with the noble Viscount's Amendments. This is in complete line with our thinking. I give him the assurance that the Government have very much in mind the need for speedy dispatch of business by licensing authorities. This is obviously necessary. If some awful day should arrive when the old system stopped and the future one began, but nothing happened for a month, this country would be in a pretty pickle, and we all recognise this. We are aiming at the same objectives. If this Bill passes into law there will be a period between the date of its passage into law and the appointed day when this Part of the Bill comes into effect. In this interim period regulations and procedural matters will be subject to prior consultation with interested parties under Clause 90(8). These matters will have to be laid before the House, so that one can assume that a proper transition period will take place in plenty of time.
May I point out one or two objections to the noble Viscount's Amendment? Amendment 205C would require the railway objector to send a copy of the detailed statement of the grounds of his application before the applicant has to submit his own detailed statement in support of his application. The noble Viscount may remember that during the period of adjudication by the licensing authorities neither side knows what the other is doing; only the judge, as it were, knows. Therefore, Amendment 205C would cut across this procedure. If one takes Amendments 206C and D, these assume that in every case where an objection is made a public inquiry will be held by the licensing authority, but Clause 73 specifically provides that the licensing authority may in appropriate cases grant an authorisation forthwith, having considered the objector's statement, without an inquiry being held. This is a speeding-up procedure of the sort which the noble Viscount wants. This provision is designed to enable applications to be dealt with as speedily as possible. In other words, the noble Viscount's Amendment would in these

809
cases be harmful to the applicant's interest by preventing the immediate grant of the authorisation, which we want to see. We are all working in the same direction, and for this reason I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his useful set of Amendments.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, withdraws these Amendments, may I say that, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Winterbottom that they contain possible defects, there is a great deal in what the noble Viscount puts forward. I support the Bill, particularly Part V, and I agree with my noble friend that we have to see that it works, because the principles of it are right. On the other hand, I agree that there is a very important omission from this clause, and I wonder whether the Government would have another look at the point. The only time limit in the clause is that contained in subsection (3), which requires the objecting body to give fourteen days within which to lodge an objection. But there is no time limit within which the licensing authority must hold a public inquiry. There is nothing in the Bill to stipulate that the licensing authority should carry out their duties expeditiously. We know that most local authorities carry out their responsibilities efficiently and quickly, but there is a risk that there may sometimes be difficulties at local level. One must always take into account the human factor, since we are all fallible.
If it is not possible for safeguards of this kind to be written into the Bill, could not something be put into the regulations; or would the Government have another look at it to see whether there could be some time limit within which an inquiry should be held? Otherwise there will be a risk, if the licensing authority is not as efficient as it should be, that there will be considerable delays. I understand that industry is worried about these aspects, and it would do a great deal to assure industry, particularly that part of industry which is dealing with export orders, if it were known that this procedure would be carried out as efficiently and as quickly as possible. I would welcome any assurance which my noble friend can give that the Government will look carefully into this matter.
LORD HURCOMB: I appreciate the apprehensions of the noble Viscount about the possibility of undue delay, but I venture to doubt whether, in dealing with an administrative tribunal like a licensing authority, one effects very much by saying that they must do this or that forthwith, or within seven days, or within fourteen clays, or whatever the period is. One knows from experience that if unduly short time limits are imposed it almost always leads to difficulties and hardships from somebody's point of view.
The second point I would ask the noble Viscount to consider is the fact that this particular administrative machine now has nearly 40 years of experience behind it. I remember the very heavy burdens which were imposed on the licensing authorities when they first attempted to introduce order into the public passenger transport side of the problem. There were then very serious delays: everybody objected, everybody appeared by counsel, and argued for days on every conceivable point. But that was a long time ago, and I submit that these particular branches of the local bureaucracy (if one likes to call them that, by way of prejudice), have shown a very acute sense of the necessity for meeting the convenience of those who appear before them and whose business is affected by their decisions, and the convenience of the public. They have shown a keen sense of the interests of those people and have not been complicated, cumbersome or obstructive in their machinery. I suggest that they should be left to use their administrative experience and discretion, with perhaps a reminder from the Minister or Members of this House if, for some reason or another, they appear to be becoming unduly dilatory.
3.37 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As I understand it, the transitional provisions are laid down in Clause 93, and they enable the licensing authority to get into their stride under the Bill, if that should ever arise. We do not believe that the system is in any way workable, but if they are to get into their stride at all, they will get into their stride under the transitional provisions. I take it that my noble friend is concerned with what happens after that in relation to the applications which arise

811
for business which is not at present being done—that is to say, where it is new business and the transitional provisions do not apply.
Attention has been drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, to the dangers if unduly short time limits are imposed. I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that these are unduly short. As I tot them up, these provisions will mean something like a maximum of 36 days. I should not have thought that it would be possible to do it in very much less than that. On the other hand, my noble friend thinks that it should not be done in more time than that. A period of 36 days is a long time for this kind of irregular application to take. If this is the lowest maximum that can be imposed, I cannot agree that this is an unduly short time limit. It pinpoints how very cumbersome and delaying the whole procedure is going to be.
LORD HAWKE: I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government are again trying to kill two birds with one stone, which does not always pay, as they were doing on the question of trying to make the same rules apply to the road hauliers as to the service fleets of private firms, as I pointed out at an earlier stage of the Bill. The time limit seems to be perfectly normal and reasonable for a person who proposes to set up a continuing operation, but I cannot see why something quicker cannot be produced for one journey only.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think discussion in this House has the purpose of bringing to the notice of the Government of the day the problems which arise from their legislative proposals, and the points raised by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, are worth making. It seems that what is concerning noble Lords opposite is that new applications for authorisation to carry unusual loads which require to be transported in a hurry might be held up, and that industry or commerce might suffer as a result. That fear was expressed by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has really answered the question for me. We are not introducing a completely new procedure. All the matters which we are talking about now are dealt with by
812
the regulations under the 1960 Act. That may not be the most perfect system conceivable, but it works and I see no reason why we should change it.
I shall certainly consider the point made by my noble friend, that the only mention of time is the 14 days in Clause 73(3). But the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has pointed out that in certain cases haste is not a help, and, since we are speeding up the procedure in Clause 74, I am certain that in the transitional period, and also when the system is run in, the circumstances envisaged by noble Lords will be dealt with by existing regulations. I do not see why this should not work. It is helpful to the House that this risk should be brought to the notice of the Minister of Transport, but I do not think it is a general objection to the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I draw his attention to the very narrow way in which Clause 75 is drafted so far as the grant of special authorisation in cases of urgency is concerned? To succeed in his application, a person must be in a position where he could not have foreseen the circumstances anyway.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I give an undertaking to the noble Lord that I will answer this point at the Report stage of the Bill.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I feel that I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for struggling to answer on the problems that arise out of Clause 73. I do not wish to disturb the tranquil atmosphere of the Committee by repeating the arguments that were used the other night. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said, we think that this Part on quantity licensing is completely unworkable. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to the anxieties of industry. The anxieties of industry go far and wide, and industry does not believe that this scheme can possibly work. I feel that the references by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, to the competence of the Traffic Commissioners really did not relate to this situation. The Traffic Commissioners are, of course, first-class officers and their admirable administration is both fair and expeditious. But here they are being asked to embark on a task which the Almighty himself could not undertake, and that is our objection.

813
My noble friend asked a question about return loads, and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, was good enough to confirm unequivocally that the return load has to get a special authorisation. What could be more ridiculous than that? How can anyone predict what the situation will be, where the load will go to, what it will be, or anything about it? This is just typical. However, I do not wish to weary the Committee with arguments which we have used before. I simply want to thank: the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for what he said and tell him that we just remain unhappily unconvinced.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for agreeing with me that speed is essential for these special authorisations. I take the points he made about the Amendments, and I agree that perhaps some were not very well drafted. But I am extremely pleased to have heard the Minister say—I never heard him say it previously; otherwise I should not have alluded to it—that the "roll-on and roll-off" loads will not come under this clause. That is excellent because it is not practicable to have forward planning for such loads. It appears that the Government realise the necessity for speed in this matter, but the question is: will they themselves amend the Bill accordingly at Report stage? I can only hope that they will do so in order to try to speed up the whole process, because 36 days is too long for efficient working. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.47 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 206H:
Page 107, line 4, leave out ("partly") and insert ("mainly").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this Amendment with Amendments Nos. 205AA, 205CA and 206J, as they all make the same change. Last Wednesday night it was suggested by noble Lords opposite, perhaps somewhat intemperately, that the Road Haulage Association had a big hand in what was said from these Benches. I must say before I start that I have been assisted in bringing forward this Amendment by
814
the Multi-Shops Federation. It is significant that that is a different organisation, in that it represents the major groups of chain stores in this country and, in particular, the users of road transport. So it can therefore be said to consider the use of road transport purely on its commercial efficiency.
This small Amendment, to change the conditions under which an objection can be raised from "wholly or pertly by rail" to "wholly or mainly by rail", is designed to allay the fears of people operating or using transport that rail transport over quite short distances will be used as an excuse for a successful objection to a licence for a route. Such an objection would have two effects. One is that it may reduce the efficiency of the transport system. I am sure the Minister will say that this is well dealt with by Clause 74(5), particularly if it is amended. But it is perhaps worth remembering, that when people whose bread and butter is in the successful distribution of goods consider their transport systems, they must find the most efficient way. It is more important to them, perhaps, than to anybody else. It is only by efficiently using their transport system that they can give value for money to the consumer. Therefore, any way in which their choice of route can be messed up (if one may put it that way) by some other organisation with different interests will probably make for less efficiency. If it comes about—and I know that as a result of last Wednesday's debate we hope it may not—that this bias towards the railways goes through, it still means that these subsections as worded will give enormous strength to the objectors, whether they be the National Freight Corporation or the railways.
The other point to make, perhaps, is that if a user of transport is forced, because there is only a tiny part of his route which is best done by rail, to use rail for that part of the route, it may well not be worth his while to operate his own fleet of large goods vehicles. One can perhaps put it that the cream of his routes will be taken from him by the process of licensing and objection, and it will not be worth his while operating his fleet for what remains. This will then very much reduce the flexibility of his operations as a whole This applies particularly, of course, to large

815
firms who have subsidiaries all over the country or shops all over the country, and it is for them particularly that it is necessary to move the weight of the ability to object slightly towards their favour by putting "mainly" instead of "partly" into the subsections under consideration. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord who has spoken has asked us to substitute a bias towards the roads in this case for a bias towards rail. Really, this is what the argument on this group of clauses is all about—or, indeed, what the argument on the Bill is all about. I think the noble Lord was absolutely right to mention to your Lordships that some of the ideas which he was putting forward had perhaps been inspired by the Multiple Shops Federation, but that does not make the argument any less valuable, because we are airing a problem here. In fact, the Federation has, of course, already discussed this with the Ministry, and it seems they have not been satisfied. But we find it rather difficult to understand why the Federation believe that the Amendment is necessary. It seems that they fear that quantity licensing will result in the refusal of special authorisations, which would be against their commercial interests, and that they want to shut out rail alternatives when rail forms only a minor part of the total journey. The noble Lord quoted Clause 74, subsection (5), as the sort of argument which I was going to put forward, and indeed I am.
I believe that this system will not work unless the customer is always right. The customer's arguments are very carefully considered by the licensing authorities, and although, quite honestly, a bias towards rail does exist in this Bill, for the social reasons which have been stated by my noble friends and myself, this will not weigh unduly on the people who have to decide whether or not special authorisations should be granted. We would ask your Lordships' Committee to reject this group of Amendments because they would place an unnecessary and undesirable limitation on the right of British Railways and the National Freight Corporation to object to applications and on the licensing
816
authority's discretion in deciding disputed cases. We want the licensing authorities to have freedom of decision in this matter. The criteria on which they must judge is laid down in Clause 74, subsection (5), and I am certain that, particularly in the transitional period—this was the point made by the noble Viscount and others in our discussion a few moments ago—they will act in such a way as not to disrupt existing patterns of traffic. But over a period they may reconsider the routing; and, while accepting the bias towards rail, I am certain that the licensing authorities will exercise their powers sensibly.
The fact that these fears have been aired in this debate must be noted by my right honourable friend and must be considered by him when he starts drafting the Orders that relate to the operation of the Bill. The only assurance I can give the noble Lord is that the regulations will be drawn up sensibly, and that the operation of the Act, as it will then be, will be carried out sensibly; but I believe that his attempt to shift the bias away from the railways and towards the roads in this particular case is unreasonable, and for that reason we oppose the Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: I wonder whether there could not be some regulation introduced into the Bill to make it possible for transport which is wholly within a single firm to be at the choice of that firm. Take, for instance, a multiple-store firm such as Marks and Spencer, who have branches all over the country. It will add to their expenses enormously if they have in some cases to use rail transport and in others possibly the roads. I should have thought that when it was entirely within their own business they should have been able to choose the transport that was most efficient for them.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: That strikes me as an entirely rational approach, and I will see whether I can give the noble Lord an assurance at the Report stage of the Bill.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I understand the approach of the Minister to the problem, though it is unsatisfactory. What is unsatisfactory is the imprecision of the word "partly". I must say that I spent some time with a dictionary trying to

817
improve on it, because I could see that "mainly" was not going to be acceptable to him, but there does not seem to be a suitable adverb which comes between. But there is this imprecision, and the fact that if you happen to be a user, a non-Government body, you look at this in a totally different way from the Government body concerned. Their bias is towards rail, but they must look at things in a different kind of way. So it is very important that when you end up with an adverb like "partly", the people who are operating the licensing system do their own biasing back again towards "mainly". I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.58 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 106, line 24, leave out ("a public") and insert ("an").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 206, but I shall speak to No. 210 and No. 211 as well. The effect of these Amendments would be to permit any party interested in an application for either an operator's licence or a special authorisation to request a hearing in camera before a licensing authority or, on appeal, before the Transport Tribunal. It would, however, remain in the discretion of the licensing authority or the Tribunal, as the case may be, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances, whether it be right to grant the request. The Amendments are designed to give effect to undertakings given by the Government in another place. Both the Opposition and the spokesman of the Liberal Party had represented that, particularly Clause 62, subsection (4), in relation to operators' licences, and Clause 74, subsection (5), in relation to special authorisations, might require firms, especially those wishing to carry goods in their vehicles, to disclose financial and commercial information which might be of value to their competitors. The Government recognise the force of this argument and that is why these Amendments are now being proposed. Amendments Nos. 178, 194, 206, 210 and 220 remove the requirements that all inquiries should be held in public. Amendments Nos. 179, 195
818
and 211 are merely consequential drafting improvements.
The first new subsection, Amendment No. 221, prescribes that except where regulations governing the conduct of cases before the licensing authorities provide otherwise, inquiries shall be held in public. It will therefore be possible to make regulations permitting the licensing authorities to hold hearings in camera if they consider it appropriate. The Transport Tribunal will be able to make a similar provision by amending their rules of procedure. The advice of the Council on Tribunals and the Lord Chancellor's Office was that it would be preferable to provide for hearings in camera by regulations or procedural rules other than by substantial provision in the Bill itself.
Finally, Amendment 221, the second new subsection, strengthens the policy still further by making it an offence in certain circumstances to disclose information provided by a firm during hearings in camera, notably if the firm has not given its express permission for this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 73, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, one question? The noble Lord made a very forthcoming answer to the intervention by my noble friend Lord Somers. Lord Somers asked whether it would be possible to exempt from this procedure a transport fleet already engaged on carrying the freight of the firm in question. He put his case cogently and I entirely agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, received this suggestion as being entirely reasonable. He told us that he hoped on Report stage to give a helpful answer. I hope that he will. But is he aware that of the 100,000 heavy freight vehicles which would be affected by quantity licensing this would release 60,000?
Nobody would be more delighted than myself. This really is making progress. What I thought would be a debate which was not going to give us very much is really giving us great encouragement indeed. My noble friend Lord Hawke

819
has continually pointed out the impossible situation in which the "C" licence fleets will find themselves. I am delighted. I should be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would confirm that this is what he meant.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I will not say that the noble Lord is trying to trap me; but he is trying to make me say more than I did. I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was a valid one requiring an answer which I undertook to give at Report stage. The hard facts of the situation are that under Clause 74(5) if rail added to the cost of transporting groups of goods within an organisation's own network of companies, then special authorisations would be granted for the fleet of vehicles carrying the goods. I suspect that the costings of Marks and Spencer are accurate and precise and that they will be able to convince the licensing authorities (if the case is as I stated) that they can move their own goods more reliably, cheaper and faster with their own fleet than if forced to move them on to the railways.
This is the whole basis of the argument. The noble Lord must not ask me to go further. I undertook to give the noble Lord, Lord Somers, a specific statement on Report. I know what is in the mind of the noble Lord. I should have thought that reasonable men dealing with an existing situation would not try to distort an existing pattern of transport. I have explained clearly—and the Committee knows—the intention of the Government. I will not go further than that to-day. I or one of my noble friends will give the noble Lord an answer at the Report stage.
EARL BATHURST: Is it not an extraordinary thing that the noble Lord can give voice to such encouraging expressions to Marks and Spencer's and, no doubt, to many other enormous concerns? Can he not say that he will also let the small man off the hook? Noble Lords on that side should be looking after the small people. The noble Lord now makes encouraging noises on behalf of the great industrial concerns, helping operations in their favour, to the detriment of the smaller companies whose goods may be just as
820
important as those of the great concerns. It is a most extraordinary situation.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I will not delay the Committee. Will the noble Lord, instead of merely giving an assurance that he will look at it again, make a statement on Report giving an assurance that he will introduce an Amendment to put the matter right?
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: I cannot give that assurance, but I should like to answer the point made. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, did not specifically mention Marks and Spencer's. He gave it as an illustration. I am only repeating what I have said throughout the Bill. The intention of this particular piece of legislation is to help the railways while safeguarding the interests of the customers. Noble Lords opposite argue that this is not possible, or is possible only to a limited degree. This is what we are arguing about. I am satisfied that both the large groups of firms and the small groups will be treated judiciously and sensibly by the licensing authorities after the appointed day. I will try to spell it out to the noble Lord at Report stage. I cannot do more than that at present.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: What use is it to a court of law if all that we are going to have is an assurance from the noble Lord that he will look at it? We require that it be written in the Bill.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The assurance I gave was that I shall say something more specific on Report stage. This is not committing the matter to "Never-never land"—I shall do so on Report stage.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for answering the point on Clause 73. The fact is, as noble Lords know, that it is the intention of the Government to get a switch of 10 per cent. from road freight to rail. The anxiety of the whole of the industry is that nobody knows which 10 per cent. it is going to be. This will mean completely reversing the whole transport arrangements of the country. Everything the noble Lord has told us has further convinced us that the system is completely unworkable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before leaving this clause, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will tell us about subsection (6)? Subsection (5) states that the factor relevant for making the comparisons mentioned in subsections (3) and (4) shall be speed, reliability and cost. Subsection (6) then says that in assessing the factors mentioned in subsection (5)—speed, reliability and cost, and other relevant factors —the licensing authority shall act in accordance with any directions contained in regulations made by the Minister. Why is it necessary for the Minister to give directions to the licensing authorities on how to exercise their judgment in assessing these comparatively simple things—speed, reliability and cost? One can only presume that they are going to be directed not to take into account this, that and the next factor—things like goods lost on the way, people going on strike and so on.
What is the purpose of this provision? Why cannot this be left to the licensing authority? If I may say so, it seems to be somewhat of an affront to Parliament that Parliament should be asked to pass legislation of this kind without knowing in any way what directions are to be given to the licensing authority. Why is there a secret about it? Why cannot the noble Lord put it in the Bill? Why should there not be a Schedule showing what are the directions. This really is an affront to Parliament.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: It is no affront to Parliament. It is an attempt to solve a very complex situation which concerns everyone. Subsection (6) mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is designed simply to enable the Minister to ensure that the factors will not be narrowly defined. After all, we have here three words with which we are trying to define the criteria on which the licensing authority will decide—speed, reliability and cost. As the noble Lord probably knows, when lawyers get busy, words get distorted. If we find that these words are being too narrowly interpreted, the Minister has power to spell out their meaning. The power to make regulations is designed to allow the Minister to spell out more clearly and in more detail than is possible in the Bill precisely what is meant by speed, reliability and cost. It will not allow him to abolish these criteria, nor to change their meaning fundamen-
822
tally, or to add to them. The ma in use envisaged as to the amount of this power is to make regulations to define what is meant by cost.
Subsection (9) provides that where the goods in question are to be carried for hire or reward the rates quoted for their carriage are to be regarded as the cost of carriage. In this case the interpretation of the word "cost" will present no difficulty. But in the case of owner-carried operations, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, the cost is to be taken, under subsection (9), as meaning the cost of carrying the goods. It will be necessary to define with some precision what are the costs to he taken into account in such a case.
There is also the question of other costs, apart from the costs of carriage, in a public haulage case. The intention will be to ensure that all those relative costs, both direct and indirect, are considered by the licensing authority. For example, regulations might provide that not only the cost of the vehicle operation and driver's wages are considered, but also factoring costs, costs of loading and unloading, and the cost which would arise if the use of rail rather than road resulted in different stock levels, storage, travelling arrangements—
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, may I say that I think, due to an inadvertent suggestion from my noble friend, the noble Lord has been put on to the wrong Clause, Clause 74. Actually we are considering the question, Whether Clause 73 shall stand part.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I thought that the noble Lord opposite was talking about Clause 74(6).
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: It seems perfectly clear that the noble Lord in charge of this Bill does not understand anything about it. Perhaps he will produce something sensible on Report stage.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord really does understand about it, but he was led down the garden path by the noble Lord opposite.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I apologise to your Lordships. The reason was that I

823
was misled, in turn—it was my fault—by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has two identical Amendments to Clauses 73 and 74.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [Decision on applications for special authorisations]:
4.15 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 107, line 26, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
("() The factors relevant for making the comparison mentioned in subsections (3) and (4)(a) of this section shall be all factors relevant to a true assessment of the total effect upon the person for whom the goods are to be carried, but particularly speed, reliability, flexibility and cost, and cost for this purpose shall be interpreted in the broadest sense.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 207, and perhaps it would be convenient if I took with it Amendment No. 207A, as the arguments are basically the same. When your Lordships accepted my Amendment to Clause 1, which ensured that when the N.F.C. consulted, in conjunction with the Railways Board, to secure that goods are carried by rail it would also be by reference to the needs of the person for whom the goods in question were to be carried, and to the nature of the goods, this clearly established the scene to assist the licensing authority in making its decision. It has to decide the criteria on which a judgment is to be made.
As the clause stands, the criteria are purely speed, reliability and cost. The object of my Amendment is to expand these so as to include flexibility and cost interpreted in the broadest sense. The all-important question is, I feel, that when the licensing authority weighs up the elements in the criteria particularly relating to cost, the overall effect on the cost of the user must be taken into account and not merely the cost of transport itself; in other words, the extra backing or insurance which may be necessary for rail transit, and also the effect on the cost of carrying other road-borne traffic if one profitable slice of traffic is creamed off for the freightliner.
On the other hand, there are reasons appertaining to rail strikes and customer
824
service provided by the driver of the vehicle. I mention these examples to show that some factors are capable of quantitative assessment and some are not. It is then up to the licensing authority to reject the irrelevant material; and even if it were legally possible to consider under the heading of speed, reliability and cost, some of the points I have mentioned—which is doubtful—it would still depend in practice on how the Minister drafted his regulations under subsection (6). The noble Lord may say that it is not the intention of the Government to exclude any relevant factors, but how can they be defined in the Bill or in the regulations if, as I have tried to show, they are infinitely variable? Therefore I feel that this clause should be drafted widely with complete discretion left to the licensing authority.
With regard to my request to include flexibility as a factor in the licensing authority's consideration I think one should bear in mind that distribution is dynamic and unpredictable. One cannot plan for a sudden whim of a customer; a breakdown at a factory; delays in the provision of parts and other emergencies. Catching ships or meeting delivery dates means having a flexible and immediately available transport service. Finally, I would add, on the consideration of cost, that when the licensing authority is making a comparison I think it essential that such consideration should include the overall economic effect on the operator's fleet which the granting or withholding of a licence would have. I beg to move.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I had intended to raise a point on the Motion that clause stand part, but I think I am entitled to raise it on this Amendment because my noble friend used the words about which I wish some clarification. Those words—"for whom the goods are to be carried"—appear in subsection (3) and subsection (5). I am not clear who the person would be for whom the goods are to be carried. It is a matter of importance, in that the special authorisation depends to some extent upon the advantages and importance to the person for whom the goods are to be carried.
If I sell some goods to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and consign them

825
to him, is it to his advantage or to my advantage? If I am the salesman, undoubtedly it is to my advantage and I may have to pay the carriage, as I am the consignor. On the other hand, the noble Lord may be the consignee and may be paying the carriage, and it may be to his advantage, though it may be somewhat contrary to my advantage as consignor. Are these words a variant, depending upon the particular circumstances of each transaction and therefore a matter to be judged by the body giving the special authorisation, or are they something constant? If they are, is it to the advantage of the consignor or consignee?—because the Bill as at present drafted is ambiguous and capable of different meanings and much misunderstanding.
4.22 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: May I support the Amendment of my noble friend from the point of view of the user, large or small. I have listened to most of what has been said in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill, and apart from the debate on Clause 1 and the debate this afternoon, I think it would be true to say that in general there has been too little emphasis on the needs of the user. It is natural for us, perhaps, to think of transport as an entity in itself, whereas of course it is an essential factor in the whole chain of manufacturing, distribution and sale.
From what I may term the preliminary observations of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, a few moments ago, it might be that the Government's answer to this Amendment is that it is not really necessary. It is true that the criteria of speed, reliability and cost might be perfectly adequate, if applied to a single movement, but when it comes to frequent movements, whether of raw materials or manufactured goods, it is very important to a firm which has frequent deliveries to be able to use what in their judgment is the speediest, most economic and most convenient method at any particular time. Therefore, I believe that it is important to introduce, as my noble friend Lord Merrivale suggests, this element of flexibility.
Perhaps to those not engaged in business this seems to impose considerable problems for the provider of transport
826
but, after all, transport should be the servant of industry and not its master. Traders know from experience the best method under normal conditions for the transport of their own goods and that is the method they want to use; but they must have freedom on occasion to change the method if necessary to meet some special delivery requirement or for some other reason. After all, customers' requirements are not constant. Industry should not be in the position of having to say to a customer, "You cannot have these goods on the day you need them because we can only deliver by such-and-such a method", when in fact on that day there is an alternative method available.
Moreover, there are particular trades which require special vehicles. Naturally, there come to mind tankers with special linings, or vehicles specially adapted like those for the glass trade for the protection in transit of their products. I understand, for example, that the British Paper and Board Maker's Association have found that, excellent as the freightliners are and good as may be the hydraulic suspension and improved braking, paper sent by that means still occasionally arrives damaged and damp, so that in many cases they prefer not to use the freightliners. I do not want to be misunderstood. I am wholly in favour of the freightliner service. But it is not possible to generalise and insist on a particular method of transport, regardless of the needs of the consignor.
I believe that mechanical handling techniques and specially designed loading and offloading bays which firms with their own transport are in many cases accustomed to use are extremely valuable, and drivers themselves often have considerable and valuable customer relations and know what is required for the handling of the goods they are normally carrying. These are factors which any tribunal, if it is considering, not a single isolated move but a series of movements for a particular firm, ought to take into consideration. Therefore, I would strongly support the introduction of the word "flexibility". I would like to suggest "convenience" as well, but I do not want to complicate this. I hope I have made my point. As regards costs, I believe that the Minister is receptive to the idea that cost should be cost in its

827
broadest interpretation. I support the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: May I intervene for one moment to give a practical example of what my noble friends wish to secure in making this clause somewhat more flexible? At the present moment, whoever is giving authorisation is told to take account of speed, reliability and cost. I take it that reliability means essentially that goods arrive at the right time. But there are specialist industries where other factors must be taken into account.
To give an example, I am the chairman of the largest group of independent foundries in this country and many of our foundries are engaged in making iron castings for the motor trade. We use an enormous amount of cupular coke, which we usually trans-ship from South Wales. Immediately after the war we used rail. We gave it up for two reasons. The first was that when there was a cold spell the coke did not arrive in time, but the more important reason was that as a result of the extra handling and bumping it received on the journey, we had up to 18 inches of cupular dust at the bottom of the trucks instead of good coke which we could use. Although the price for shipment was competitive, if we took it from where it started, by the time it reached the foundries to be used, we had to spread that cost over the much less quantity of coke that was left. In these days we must be sure that goods are going to arrive when we want them, because we cannot carry unnecessarily large stocks without adding a great deal to costs, which, of course, eventually is reflected in the cost of the end-product, frequently in the export trade. The other thing is that we now use 20-ton lorries, which, although it means a driver for every 20-tons, we find is much cheaper in the long run than it would be taking it by rail. So I hope that whatever is agreed to be put in this clause will enable the man who gives the authorisation to look at other factors as well as the three included in the clause.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is really probing the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn was probing on the question, That the
828
clause stand part. Perhaps I could answer one or two points raised by other noble Lords at this stage before I come to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, envisaged a hypothetical situation in which he was shipping goods to me. The position is quite clear, so far as the intention of the Bill is concerned. The words, "for whom the goods are to be carried", mean the consignor, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. My interests, the consignee's interests, are bound to be important to the consignor, because I know that over many years we are going to do a profitable business together. But it will be the consignor's interest to argue the case with the licensing authority for sending the goods to me. So the words "for whom the goods are to be carried", refer to the consignor.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Would it not be better to put it clearly in the Bill? It would mean only a small Amendment.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I will undertake to see what can be done on Report stage. This is the point of the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair, said that I would argue that the Amendment was not really necessary. In point of fact I am about to move Amendment No. 207Z because discussions in another place indicated that a further clarification of these points is necessary. The noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, also spoke, and when I answer Lord Merrivale's Amendment I hope to satisfy the noble Marquess, too.
The Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, plus subsection (6) of Clause 74, which was probed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, cover the same area. The Amendment, as I understand it, seeks to replace the criteria in Clause 74(5) to be used by the licensing authority for comparing road and rail services in quantity licensing cases and the Minister's power in Clause 74(6) to direct licensing authorities by regulations in the interpretation of those criteria, by a much more broadly-expressed criterion of
"all factors relevant … particularly speed, reliability, flexibility and cost",
cost being interpreted
"in the broadest sense".
I tried to say that to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Cost is not just the

829
simple cost of shipping coke from A to B; it is shipping coke from A to B, less the cost of wastage en route. That is obviously cost. I think it is true that there is no dispute there. The Government accept the proposition that a consignor should not suffer loss by having to send goods by rail rather than road. Clause 74(5) is intended to give proper expression to the Minister's declared policy that the three criteria are met in a way relevant to the interests of the consignor.
There have been exhaustive discussions with interested organisations about the intention for quantity licensing. The Government have made plain their intention that the expression, "speed, reliability and cost" shall be interpreted very broadly and so as to include not only such specific matters as packaging and insurance costs, risk of damage to goods, or the need for larger inventories, but also factors such as flexibility and convenience. To give effect to this intention the Bill contains a power for the Minister by legislation to direct the licensing authorities as to how the factors should be interpreted. That is Clause 74(6), the Minister's power to interpret these three criteria.
We hope that the Government's intentions, which will be expressed in Amendment No. 207Z. which I hope to move soon, will help noble Lords to understand the Government's intentions clearly. We believe that this solution is preferable to the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, which we feel, since he has not had the advantage of Parliamentary draftsmen (that is denied to noble Lords) is loosely expressed, and would undoubtedly prove difficult to interpret. We resist his Amendment only for this reason.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Would the noble Lord consider inserting in the Bill on the Report stage that the licensing authority is instructed by Parliament to interpret these regulations, to quote his words, very broadly? Will that be any help to anybody?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, one question. He said during the course of his last speech that the Government's intention is that the consignee—and, presumably, by implication, the consignor—ought not to suffer loss
830
by sending goods by rail rather than by road. If this is the case, what is the point of having the whole of this Part of the Bill? It is disliked by almost everybody except the Government. It seems to me that by saying this the Government have cut the earth away beneath their own argument, which is that they want to encourage goods to be transferred from road to rail. People who send goods by road have some good reason for doing so. They do not just send them by road because they want to "down" British Railways. It is because it is cheaper, more reliable, there is less damage, or for some other good reason that they send the goods by road. Surely the Government are being totally inconsistent. If they seriously believe that the consignor and the consignee ought not to suffer because of sending goods by rail rather than by road then they ought to withdraw this Part of this Bill and admit that the whole thing was an error from the word "Go".
LORD SOMERS: What my noble friend has just said confirms what I have been feeling right through this Part of the Bill; namely, that the intention to transfer part of the goods traffic from road to rail, while it is a good thing in itself, is being done in entirely the wrong way. The only way in which goods should be transferred from road to rail is by making the railway goods service more efficient, quicker and cheaper than the road service.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to thank all noble Lords behind me who have supported this Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for what he has said. I want to refer to his Amendment (if it is in order), because Amendment No. 207Z refers to cost, and not to convenience or flexibility. During the course of his remarks he referred to flexibility, which is highly desirable; and, as the noble Lord knows—it was expressed by my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeves—the Confederation of British Industry are extremely keen that there should be this element of flexibility and convenience. The noble Lord mentioned that flexibility would come into the considerations of the licensing authority. He says that he prefers his Amendment to mine, but my Amendment includes "flexibility". Why then is it that "flexibility" is not included in the

831
noble Lord's Amendment? Would he consider including "flexibility"? I agree with what the noble Lord said about Parliamentary draftsmen, and from the technical point of view it may be that my Amendment is defective. Would the noble Lord answer the question as to whether he would be willing to consider inserting "flexibility" into his Amendment at a later stage?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: We are not really at odds on this. Convenience and flexibility, surely, are included in the criteria as interpreted widely in the Amendment I am about to move. Flexibility, surely, is linked with speed; so is convenience; so is reliability. Reliability is linked with convenience and flexibility. These two words, I think, can be fitted into the three criteria laid down in subsection (5) and, as I hope, widened by subsection (6) and the Amendment I am about to move. I think that the noble Lord and I are at one. It is merely a question of how to put it into the Bill, and we believe that our Amendment, because of the unfair advantages we have, is a slightly better one.
LORD MERRIVALE: On the noble Lord's assurance that in effect flexibility will be considered, I think I can leave it at that. And on the quesion of cost, I agree that the point seems to be covered; that it will be very widely based and consideration will be given to cost. With the final assurance of the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.42 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 207Z:
Page 107, line 28, leave out from ("reliability") to ("by") in line 29 and insert (", cost and such other matters relevant to the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried as may be prescribed; and the licensing authority shall assess the relative importance of those factors").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 207Z standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper. This Amendment gives the Minister power by regulation to add to the factors of speed, reliability and cost, by reference to which the comparison between road and rail services is to be made in quantity licensing cases, other matters relevant to the consignor—con-
832
venience and flexibility, for instance. It is important that there should be no misunderstanding about the purpose of the Amendment. It is not some last-minute attempt to alter the policy on quantity licensing; in fact, it is quite the opposite. The Government have made plain their intention that the expression "speed, reliability and cost" shall be interpreted very broadly and so as to include not only such specific matters as packaging and insurance costs, risk of damage to goods or the need for larger inventories, but also factors such as flexibility and convenience.
To give effect to this intention, the Bill contains a power for the Minister, by regulation, to direct the licensing authorities how the factors should be interpreted. This Amendment provides an additional safeguard for the consignor's interests by providing a reserve power to ensure that the intention to interpret the factors widely should not be frustrated by any limitation interest in the natural meaning of the words "speed, reliability and cost". The Amendment thus seeks to achieve the same objective as that of the noble Lord, Amendment No. 207, but it is preferred, for the reasons I have given. I beg to move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for explaining to us the purpose of this Amendment. He need not disclaim the good intention; this is to his credit. The more he can change the basis of quantity licensing, the better it will be. If only he would change it altogether, that would be best of all. He has to some extent recanted on the original tightness of the criteria, and to that extent has improved the Bill. But, of course, the major objection still remains: that every firm will be at risk. No firm will know until it has made its application whether or no it will get a 'special authorisation; and this is of course a disastrous upset to the whole transport system. But, so far as it goes, this Amendment is an improvement to something which cannot in any event be made to work.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to add a few words to thank the noble Lord for introducing this Amendment. It would appear to meet the points I

833
had in mind when moving my Amendment. Accordingly, I am grateful to him for moving this Amendment.
EARL BATHURST: Can the noble Lord give us an assurance regarding what he said to my noble friend Lord Balfour, who is not in his place at the moment? I understood him to say that it is a consignor who will be receiving the benefit. Many small traders have to deal with large firms. Is the noble Lord, the Minister, quite certain that under his wording, with the advantage of the Parliamentary draftsmen, he is not in effect giving a great deal of advantage to the large producer at the expense of the small man who is at the buying end? Does he not think that the consignee also should have some benefit?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: In answering the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, I tried to make the point that the consignor was responsible but that he was in fact also safeguarding the consignee's interest, and unless the consignor did safeguard the consignee's interest he would not be asked by the consignee to transport his goods for him. I think that no special favour will be granted to the large firm or the small one. The licensing authorities will act in a judicial capacity, and equal justice will be meted out to the large haulier and the small. I have no worry on this particular point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask one question, which may be so obvious that it will get an immediate response? The question is simply this. Does "person", in the singular, include the plural? This is very important because, of course, many carriers are carrying for many more consignors than one, and they may even be carrying in the same consignment different goods to which different considerations apply. I think that this is a very important consideration. That is my first question. The second is this. I revert to our previous discussion; it might be worth while referring to it again—one was, unhappily, interrupted. By his present Amendment the noble Lord is widening very considerably what subsection (6) will apply to. Subsection (6) refers to interpretation by any directions contained in regulations made by the Minister. But he now has to relate that not only to cost, reliability and speed, but also to other matters "relevant to the
834
needs of the person". Directions in regard to that very wide field seem to become rather a different matter. Has the noble Lord thought of that?
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has again raised the point which he raised once before, that there was a little confusion as to exactly which clause we were discussing. I think he has raised a very important point in objecting to the directions contained in the regulations by the Minister. This sort of thought permeates this whole Bill. The authority of the Minister is being stressed in one place after another. In this particular case I think it is very ill-advised, and the Government should have a look at it again.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I support the point made by my noble friend Lord Bathurst? There are many cases where firms have an almost monopolistic position in this country. I think I am right in saying that industrial salt is one of them. It may be for the consignor's convenience that such goods should be dispatched by rail to all concerned, but in very many cases this would not suit the consignee. The consignee will have no "come-back" under this Bill, because it is for the consignor to apply for the special authorisation, and the consignee will have no other firm to whom he may go and from whom he might get a rather better service, because there is not one. Surely in this case there is a very real danger that the consignor will use his monopolistic position to make sure that it suits his convenience but not that of the consignee.
I feel that if we are going to have what I can only describe as a ridiculous system of transport envisaged under this Bill, consideration should be given to the consignee as well as to the consignor; and that something should be put somewhere in the Bill enabling the consignee, as well as the consignor, to get a special authorisation, if he so wishes and if lie has reasons for doing so. I am rather worried about this point, and about what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has said both to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and to the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst.
LORD SOMERS: I am sorry to delay the noble Lord's reply, but could he make quite clear what is the position as

835
regards damage to goods in transit? Is the responsibility that of the consignor or of British Transport?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think that in this particular discussion we are moving into a field for lawyers. I can answer the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. A "person" is a judicial person, and therefore can mean persons as well. I have not clearly understood the dilemma facing the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I want to understand and help the noble Lord if I can. Am I right in thinking that what is concerning him is the mixed load from one consignor sent to a number of consignees?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I was concerned primarily to make quite certain that as the Bill is drafted it would be possible for a person to make application for a special authorisation to carry goods for several persons and not just for one.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: In reason I would have said this must be so. One cannot conceive of a consignor running, shall we say, a common carrier's business, being forced to run half empty if he can get a licence for half the load and not the other half. If I may answer the point at the Report stage, I will do so. There are many points needing clarification, and I would sooner do it, after consultation, at the next stage.
EARL BATHURST: I am very unhappy about what the noble Lord said with regard to the interests of the consignee. A little while ago he gave some hope that he would consider those interests, and particularly those of the small man, with whom the noble Duke and I are concerned. He has already said that the consignor is looked after by these words in his Amendment. Would he also consider ensuring at a later stage that the consignee is looked after in a similar way? It would take very little trouble I think, if the intention is as he has said.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I thought the noble Lord was talking about the small consignor, but he is in fact talking about the small consignee.
EARL BATHURST: I was always talking about the small consignee, and so was the noble Lord, Lord Balfour.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn was defining who had problems in obtaining special authorisations. However, I will try to satisfy the noble Lord at a later date.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.54 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 207B:
Page 108, line 18, at end insert—
(" () In the event of the licensing authority refusing an applicant the renewal of a licence already held by him, then the applicant shall be empowered to claim compensation for financial loss arising from the said refusal.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the compensation provisions contained in this Bill are fair. They provide for an existing bus operator under Clause 19 and Schedule 6 to receive compensation if the Passenger Transport Executive refuses an application for the continuance of an existing service and therefore this entails revocation of a consent. Paragraph 10(2) of the Schedule states:
"Where a notice",
that is a revocation notice—
"under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph is served on any operator, the operator may at any time not later than the date specified for the purpose in the Executive's notice serve on the Executive a notice in writing …

(a) requiring the Executive to pay to the operator compensation computed in accordance with paragraph 11 of this Schedule …"

It would seem to me to be reasonable that compensation should be paid to a haulier or an own-account operator if the licensing authority refused the renewal of a licence already held by either operator. I think that such a refusal could be particularly serious in the case of the haulier, and especially a small haulier. He might have bought vehicles with an expected ten-year life and then find that the licence renewal was refused after five years. So I think there could definitely be a case of hardship here. If compensation is provided for a bus operator, I cannot see why compensation should not be provided also for a haulier or an own-account operator, though I agree that the case for the haulier would be perhaps stronger than for the owner of his own vehicles. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is working in harness with the Liberal Party, I understand,

837
because they apparently moved a similar Amendment in another place. We believe that this Amendment is imprecise in that it mentions only a licensing authority refusing an applicant a renewal of a licence already held by him. Since "A", "B" and "C" licences will not be renewed when quantity licensing comes in, and since special authorisations are not licences as such, the effect of the Amendment is to cover the renewal of operators' licences only. It is probably intended, nevertheless, to refer to the refusal to grant a special authorisation in succession to a carrier's licence. Am I right?
LORD MERRIVALE: Yes.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: We resist this Amendment because it attempts to establish new principles of continuity and compensation which have not been found necessary under the present carriers' licensing system and which we believe are undesirable and unnecessary under the system. The Amendment runs counter to the proposals and the intentions of the Bill as drafted.
LORD MERRIVALE: I do not understand the Government's reasoning, because a haulier may lose his means of livelihood through the refusal of renewal of licence, in the same way as a bus operator may lose his means of livelihood. I cannot see why, if it is fair, as it is, that the bus operator should be compensated because he is losing his means of livelihood, it is not fair that a haulier, who equally loses his means of earning his living, should also he compensated. I would have thought it should work both ways. The noble Lord says that this Amendment is imprecise. He said earlier that I had not the advantage of Parliamentary draftsmen, and I heartily agree. What I should like the noble Lord to consider is whether there is not a case for granting compensation to a haulier who has been deprived of his means of living.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord has in fact clarified his Amendment by saying he is not really referring to licensing but to the termination of special authorisations. There are strong arguments in equity for compensation, whatever the legal precedent may be, if quantity licensing is expected to put firms out of business. Of course it would be nonsensical to guarantee that no one will lose business in a situation where the aim
838
is to switch some traffic from road to rail. The compensatory factor is that road transport is growing so fast that the 10 per cent. loss to the railway may well be compensated for by new business. But the effect of this on a growing road transport industry will be small, and as I said, soon overtaken by a general increase in traffic.
Nevertheless it is reasonable for special arrangements to be made for any operator whose carrier's licence is terminated in order to bring quantity licensing more rapidly and widely into force than would otherwise be possible. For this reason Clause 93(6) allows a licensing authority to add "hardship" to the normal criteria of "speed, reliability and cost" when deciding whether to grant a special authorisation in place of a "called-in" carrier's licence. In this case the hardship grounds would be applicable only to the period represented by unexpired parts of the called-in licence, but they would help ensure that no one would suddenly and unexpectedly have to seek new customers because the extent of his licence had been curtailed.
I should like to make two further points to the noble Lord. First, where a special authorisation is refused it means that the rail service is equally as good. Therefore, the haulier is likely to be under severe competition on that route. The special authorisation is really intended to do no more than accelerate market forces for which compensation would not be payable. Secondly, where a person is refused an operator's licence, a "quality" licence, it will be his own fault, because it will mean that he has not maintained proper standards of vehicle maintenance, and we believe that it lies within the operator's capability to raise his standards and secure such a licence. In this particular case we do not believe there should be compensation.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thank the noble Lord for those extra remarks, and particularly those about special arrangements. If I understood him aright, with regard to quantity licences there would be a case for compensation if they are called in. The point I want to make is that if they are not called in but are not renewed after the period of five years and there is hardship, would it then he a case for compensation?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: In equity, if the grounds were the same, I should have thought there were grounds for compensation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Does the noble Lord mean that there will be compensation, or that there are theoretical grounds for compensation? If he means that there will be compensation, where is it stated in the Bill?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I have said "theoretical grounds" for compensation, in so far as Clause 93(6) says that a licensing authority can add hardship to the normal criteria mentioned when deciding whether to grant a special authorisation in place of a called-in carrier's licence. That is to say if the cancellation of a carrier's licence would involve hardship in those circumstances, the licensing authorities can take it into account.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is not compensation in the ordinary sense, but merely a continuation of the licence until the period when it would normally have expired. Is that right?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: This, again, is a point of law. I should like to answer the noble Lord at a later stage of the Bill on this specific point.
LORD MERRIVALE: In view of that final assurance, which I imagine is reasonably satisfactory, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 74, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I once again apologise for having to some extent raised the matter that we have been discussing on Clause 73 instead of on Clause 74? I am sorry to have launched the noble Lord on a spate of oratory which was suddenly cut short. I hope that he will not feel that he should not resume it, because he was at a most interesting stage of what he had to say. He was dealing with the directions that may be contained in regulations by the Minister, and as I understood him he was saying that these were entirely advantageous because they were going to interpret in the widest possible sense what the
840
word "cost" meant and were going to be virtually limited to that. I wonder whether he could go on from that point?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Like the noble Lord, I was sorry to stop. I thought I was in full flood, and I am sorry that I was not able to continue to the last drop. But may I repeat what I was saying? I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I re-read this section of my brief, which is precisely worded in order to clarify the situation. The power to make regulations is designed to allow the Minister to spell out more clearly and in more detail than is possible in the Bill precisely what is meant by "speed, reliability and cost" and "detriment". It will not allow him to abolish these criteria, nor to change their meaning fundamentally, nor to add to them.
The main use envisaged for this power is the making of regulations to define what is meant by "cost". Subsection (9) provides that where the goods in question are to be carried for hire or reward the rates quoted for that carriage are to be regard as the cost of carriage. In this case the interpretation of the word "cost" will, I hope, present no difficulties. But in the case of "own account" operation, cost is to be taken, under subsection (9) as meaning the cost of carrying the goods, and it will be necessary to define with some precision precisely what costs are to be taken into account in such a case.
There is also the question of other costs apart from costs of carriage in a public haulage case. The intention will be to ensure that all relevant costs, both direct and indirect, are considered by the licensing authority. For example, regulations might provide that not only the costs of vehicle operation and drivers' wages are to be considered but also packaging costs, costs of loading and unloading, and the costs that would arise if the use of rail rather than road resulted in different stock levels, storage and handling arrangements for the goods concerned—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Could I just get this right. Is the noble Lord still talking only about costs of people operating their own transport, or does this apply in general—for example, where the consignor employs a carrier, or wishes to employ a carrier, to carry the

841
goods and this is opposed by the railways and the National Freight Corporation?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: As I try to envisage the situation, if a consignor arranges for a carrier to carry the goods of a consignee he will obtain a quoted price which will be charged to the consignee. This is a clear cut figure about which there is no argument. But if you get to the case when an independent—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Including insurance, and alt the other things?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: That, surely, would be included in the price of the consignment, or could be if it was so wished. But when you get to the "own account" operation, to use the words here, then of course the "cost" must mean the cost to the business as it now operates. That is why we have tried to give power to the Minister, after consultation presumably, when an individual firm is arguing its case with the licensing authorities, to take this wide spectrum of factors into account when calculating cost. I hardly feel that it could be drawn more widely.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: On a completely different point on the Question, That the clause stand part, I am still not happy about the consignee, because although the noble Lord has said that he will look into this matter, it is of great importance to a mass of small firms in this country who have to buy from large consignors and who have little chance of changing their consignor. If the noble Lord looks into it and produces something which is not satisfactory to this mass of small firms, there is little we can do about it because, as is frequently said, we do not have the advantage of Parliamentary draftsmen. This is the sort of thing on which it is going to be almost impossible for the normal person on this side of the Committee to draft a suitable Amendment before the Report stage of the Bill. I should therefore like the noble Lord to go a little further and say that he will look at this point sympathetically, because it is extremely important, and I can see that in some cases some consignors will not please their consignees if they have entire control over who applies for the special authorisation.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Noble Lords have made this point clearly. I have understood it, and I undertake to try to give a sympathetic, certainly, and satisfactory, I hope, answer at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: I hesitate to trespass further on the time of the Committee, but I should like to go back to the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I personally find the wording in subsection (6) very wrong in a Bill that is to become an Act of Parliament. The clause says,
"In assessing the factors … the licensing authority shall act in accordance with any directions contained in regulations made by the Minister".
The Minister tells us that his right honourable friend's intentions are entirely good, and I do not doubt it. But this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will last a good many years and will be interpreted by lawyers as it is written; and these words, to my simple mind, give the Minister authority to vary the clauses, to vary the conditions in any way that seems to him fit.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the Minister replies, may I revert to another point which I made earlier, and which he did not answer at that time? I cannot help thinking that his brief was drafted before the last Amendment he moved was tabled. The reason is that when he was replying on the Question, That the clause stand part, he said, as I understood him, that the matters on which directions would be given would he confined to the three criteria. I think I noted this correctly. The difficulty (and I ask him to look at this again) is that this Amendment goes outside that, because the factors now are speed, reliability, and cost and "such other matters as are relevant to the needs of the person". This is what the Amendment says. The other matters relevant to the needs of the person then become factors, and this enormously widens the area on which the Minister may be able to give directions in regulations; so I really think that this clause needs to be looked at again.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord is correct in thinking that my brief was drafted before my Amendment; but the Amendment represents the later stage of the argument. This is what I

843
hope will appear in the draft Bill as it leaves this House, and in fact this has widened the points, the criteria, made in my second attempt to explain Clause 74(2) to the noble Lord.
May I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, which, because of the noble Lord's experience, must be taken very seriously, not only by this House but by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport? The noble Lord is concerned that this particular subsection gives the Minister too much power. I have tried to spell it out earlier. The power to make regulations is designed to allow the Minister to spell out more clearly and in more detail than is possible in the Bill precisely what is meant by "speed, reliability and cost" and "detriment", but it will not allow him to abolish these criteria, nor to change their meaning fundamentally, nor to add to them. I think that this statement I have made to the House is designed to indicate that the powers in subsection (6) are limited. However the point is obviously of substance, and I will try to clarify the whole position at Report stage.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Terms and conditions of special authorizations]:
5.16 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 207C:
Page 108, line 43, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 207C. Clause 76(1) states that in granting a special authorisation the licensing authority shall
"attach thereto such other conditions as he thinks fit, including in particular conditions

(a) as to the vehicles which may be used under the special authorisation;"

and so on. In the past, users have understood that it was not envisaged that special authorisation would involve vehicles to be specified by registration number. That would, it seems to me, be quite unnecessary and quite undesirable. I cannot see the point at all of referring to vehicles by their registration numbers. The vehicles should be changeable, I should have thought. Therefore, I beg to move
844
that paragraph (a) of Clause 76(1) be deleted, as such deletion would cut down an item of bureaucracy which, in my humble opinion, serves absolutely no purpose.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The purpose of the Amendment may be to provide that when an applicant for a special authorisation has been granted a licence to carry certain goods there should be no limit on the amount of goods which could be carried. Paragraph (a) as it stands would enable the licensing authority to limit the volume of traffic by specifying the number and size of vehicles. There are two reasons why it is necessary to retain the licensing authorities' discretion to add a condition of this kind. In the first place it may be that an objection to a special authorisation by the railways arose because of the volume of traffic involved rather than because of its nature. In such circumstances it might be necessary to define the special authorisation in terms of vehicles in order to limit the volume of the traffic to be carried by the applicant.
In the second place, and of more general application, is the point that licensing authorities need to know which vehicles have special authorisations in order to enforce the quantity licensing system. It will not, however, be necessary in all cases to specify the actual vehicles which may be used (that is, by registration mark); in many cases it will be sufficient to use a more general specification (for example, "6, 20-ton vehicles"). This will be a valuable aid to flexibility in the industry, since it will mean that an operator with a large fleet will be able to use any of his vehicles (up to the specified maximum number) to perform an authorised service. Control will still be achievable by the issue of identity discs (see Clause 90) up to the maximum number authorised by the authorisation, which are transferable between vehicles in the operator's fleet. Licensing authorities already have discretionary powers of this kind and they are not used in order to prevent consignors from employing vehicles which are the most suitable for the traffic in question. If a licensing authority imposed a condition which the applicant thought was unreasonable he would have the right of appeal to the Transport Tribunal. I hope this meets the noble Lord's point.
LORD MERRIVALE: What I was mainly concerned with is that in effect it will not be necessary for the haulier to have to specify the registration number, and, if I understand the noble Lord aright, in effect he does not have to specify the registration number. With that, I am perfectly content, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 76 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BURTON: May I ask for clarification on subsection (1)(c)? To take a hypothetical case of what might arise in a firm in my own area, let us imagine a driver going from Inverness to London, where he would find a return load. He would then have to telephone his firm, which would then have to go to the licensing authority in Aberdeen, 100 miles away, and he might then get his special authorisation. Would they have to wait for a copy of that authorisation to be sent all the way back to the driver in London before the driver would be allowed to leave? He has to have a copy with him, and it seems unreasonable that it should have to go through the post, perhaps taking another couple of days.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: This is a rather "fast one", but I hope that I will be able to satisfy the noble Lord. It is envisaged that holders of authorisations will usually be required to see that a copy of the conditions defining the authorised service is carried by the driver of the vehicle being used under the authorisation. The conditions written into "B" licences at the moment, which are in many ways similar to the conditions which will be written into the special authorisations under the Bill, will have to be carried on the authorised vehicle. They are normally written on the identity disc, but in future there may be cases where the conditions are too lengthy or complex to be contained on the disc and will have to be carried instead on a separate document.
The purpose of this requirement is to assist enforcement. When a vehicle is stopped at a roadside check, under Clause 82(1) an enforcement officer would be entitled to require the production of any documents carried under this subsection and to inspect and copy them as neces-
846
sary. Unless the conditions were immediately available in this way, it would be tedious to check that the lorry which had been stopped in fact was being used within the terms of the authorisation. The officer would have to note the goods which were carried and the journey on which the vehicle was engaged and then check these details later against the copy of the conditions of the authorisation held at the traffic area office. This tedious and wasteful process is avoided by requiring the conditions of the authorisation to be carried on the vehicle so that the officer can see immediately whether or not he should suspect a breach.
LORD BURTON: This is what I feared, and I believe it will cause considerable difficulty. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this point again. I feel that the situation might be eased by the licensing authority from which the load is to be taken being able to give a copy. If we are to have this iniquitous clause, I can see that it will be difficult to enforce it. I hope that this matter will be looked at again.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Variation of special authorizations].
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 110, line 23, leave out ("out")
The noble Lord said: I should like to take Amendment No. 208 and Amendment No. 209 together. These are drafting Amendments. The word "out" is redundant in both cases. It does not appear in similar provisions of Clause 73(1) for sending copies of applications for special authorisations to the Railways Board and the Freight Corporation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 209.
Amendment moved—
Page 110, line 27, leave out ("out").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.25 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 209A:
Page 110, line 31, at end insert—
(" () If the Licensing Authority refuses to grant a special authorisation to any applicant and the goods in respect of which the application was made are subject to any abnormal delay caused by any failure on the part of the Railway Board of any service provided by them in respect of the carriage of such goods the applicant shall have the right to claim compensation for any direct or consequential loss caused to him and such claims shall be made against the Railways Board within three months of the date of the refusal of the said application.")
The noble Lord said: Where traffic is compulsorily transferred to the National Freight Corporation or the Railways Board against the wishes of the user, and the user subsequently suffers loss thereby in terms of damage or delay, and so on, because of the failure of the N.F.C. or the railways to match promises with performance, the user has no redress. As I understand it, the only action the applicant can take is to make a further application to the licensing authority for special authorisation. Surely if the user suffers a loss through a decision taken against his wishes he should be entitled to some redress or compensation as a matter of common justice. That is the reason for this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The Amendment as drafted is unacceptable for the following reasons. Under the present licensing system the railways are able to object to the issue of an "A" or "B" licence to a public haulier on the grounds that they already have spare capacity to carry the goods. If, as a result, the consignor entrusts his goods to the railway he has no statutory right under the Road Traffic Act 1960 to compensation, should loss be caused by abnormal delay. This Bill, however, provides a real sanction against the railways' making claims for their services which they subsequently cannot carry out.
One of the criteria which a licensing authority must take into account when considering an application for special authorisation is that of reliability. The railways know well that if they object to an application for a special authorisation and are unable to supply a satisfactory alternative service, their failure will be quoted in licensing authority courts all
848
over the country. A precedent will have been created, and will be quoted. They are therefore likely to be most cautious in making objections. In the event of persistent failure by the railways to honour their undertakings, a consignor would be able to apply at any time for a special authorisation with enhanced chances of having it granted. Bearing in mind these considerable safeguards in the Bill, and the fact that delays are not the sole preserve of the railways, we believe that this Amendment should be resisted.
An important point is that it will be open to the applicant to contend that reasonable insurance costs arising from carriage of goods by rail should be taken into account in comparing road and rail alternatives. This point was put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I give an assurance that in making regulations under Clause 74(6), interpreting the scope of the costs which may be taken into account when comparing road and rail services, the Minister will direct licensing authorities to take proper account of the reasonable costs of any insurance necessary to compensate the consignor against possible failure by rail or road to deliver goods promptly. I hope that this will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD MERRIVALE: The best part of the noble Lord's reply came right at the end: that there were grounds for a consignor to obtain compensation if the railways or road haulier did not meet the requirements which they had contracted to meet. Have I understood the noble Lord aright?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: It is not a question of compensation. I said that the individual firm can insure against damage arising from lack of reliability by road or rail transport. And the cost of such insurance can be taken into account when calculating the costs of carrying goods by rail instead of by road.
LORD HAWKE: Can the noble Lord confirm that this is correct? This is a new one on me. Is it possible in the market to take out a policy against the railways' failing to deliver one's goods promptly?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I believe it is possible to ensure against an unidentified flying object landing on your roof.

849
You can insure against anything. What I have said is that it will be open to the applicant to contend that reasonable insurance costs arising from carriage of goods by rail should be taken into account in comparing costs of transport by road and rail. I can assure the noble Lord that in making regulations under Clause 74(6), interpreting the scope of the costs which may be taken into account when comparing road and rail services, the Minister will direct licensing authorities to take proper account of the reasonable costs of any insurance necessary to compensate the consignor against possible failure of rail—or, if it comes to that, of road—to deliver goods promptly. One can conceive of an essential element of a complex plant having to reach that plant by a given date. Known costs would have to be met if it did not achieve the required delivery date, and a penalty clause might be involved. The cost of insuring against such a penalty clause could be included when comparing costs of transporting goods by road and rail.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has made a very important point, which I do not think is well known to the general public. My noble friend's Amendment raises rather wider issues than the point he has made. I have always maintained that if British Railways are to regain the confidence of their customers—and it is the loss of that confidence that is really causing their big losses—they must try to make certain that they deliver goods promptly, or, in default, pay compensation. If it were well known to the ordinary small consignor that, if his goods did not arrive at a certain specified time, British Railways would automatically pay him £10 or whatever it was, that would go a long way to restore confidence, But what the noble Lord has said about its being possible for the commercial consignor to insure against British Railways not delivering his goods in time is most important. I was quite unaware that such a policy was available.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Surely, if this is possible—and, of course, I accept the noble Lord's statement that it is—it would be much simpler and easier for all concerned if British Railways carried the insurance end agreed to pay compensation. My noble friend's Amendment has at least brought out the point that the noble Lord is recommending
850
firms who are forced by this Part of the Bill to use British Railways to insure against late delivery, and if British Rail are confident that they are going to supply an excellent service they obviously ought to undertake the insurance themselves. That would save a great deal of trouble, and I should have thought that the Amendment was entirely acceptable, so far as it went. But it seems entirely untrue to say that this is on a par with the present "A" and "B" licences granted to hauliers. This goes much further than those licences, and people are far more likely to find themselves frustrated by the delays of British Railways, if we ever have to live under the new system, than they do at the moment.
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: I must once again make a point which I made in the spirited debate on Amendment No. 202. It is assumed by many noble Lords opposite that everything that goes by rail goes astray and everything that goes by road is delivered promptly on the right day and at the right time. That is something which I cannot accept.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: If it is any comfort to the noble Lord, we always stipulate when we are getting goods from the South that they should go by British Rail and not by British Road Services, because we find British Rail much more reliable than British Road Services, to our part of the country. So I can assure the noble Lord that I am not speaking because I personally do not like using British Rail. On the whole, we are lucky. We live on a main line and British Rail give us a very good service. But that experience is not universal.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am certain that British Rail will use the noble Duke's tribute as part of their advertising.
EARL BATHURST: May I join with my noble friend Lord Hawke in taking up the very important point which the noble Lord has made with regard to insurance? Could he confirm that claims for damage due to the loss of a process, or loss of orders from failure to deliver a particular machine, would also he covered in this insurance, and not just the value of the goods dispatched? There is a very great difference, and I suspect that such insurance would add very considerably to the cost of the transport.
LORD MITCHISON: I am speaking as a mere Life Peer, and we were told on the highest authority the other day, I think on television, that we spoke too much—something which I am sure will not affect any noble Lord opposite—and also that we spoke on matters of which we had no experience. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is not a Life Peer, and therefore he is no doubt entitled to speak on things of which he has no experience. But what earthly authority has he for suggesting that it is not possible to insure against this risk? Have any of the noble Lords who have been asking about it tried? I have always understood that the only difficulty was to insure against twins, but my noble friend on my left tells me that even that is now possible. I have known some quite remarkable risks covered and I see nothing particularly remarkable in this one.
Those who put down the Amendment presumably know what it means. What I have been waiting to hear is, what is meant by the word "abnormal". Is it the same delay that is normal in Scotland, where I have always understood (I hope the noble Duke will not take this personally) that all the trains stopped at Blair Atholl, because one of his ancestors stipulated accordingly with the railways. If I am wrong, I shall withdraw at once.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I can assure the noble Lord that he is absolutely right, and I shall not take it personally, because it was well before I was born.
LORD MITCHISON: That, clearly, would not be a normal delay! I have a suspicion that the noble Lords who have put down and supported this Amendment so fervently have done so, not on any particular public ground but because, for the moment, they are committed lock, stock and barrel to supporting any demand, however preposterous, provided that the demander is a road haulier.
LORD TREFGARNE: Being unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, a hereditary Peer, I naturally support this Amendment. Perhaps I may ask him whether he realises that although the insurance he mentioned may be available on the market, the question is: how much is one going to have to pay for it? Although I am not a Lloyd's underwriter, my noble
852
friends who are tell me that they would not accept such a risk for any premium in the world.
LORD MITCHISON: I do not have extensive acquaintances among underwriters, although I know one or two underwriting agents. I am sorry that the noble Lord's friends are so unenterprising. But the question was whether or not it was possible to insure against this risk. There was no question about the premium for it, and that was not asked. We were told by two authorities on the last Back Bench but one opposite that you could not insure against that risk, and I took leave to wonder whether they really knew what they were talking about.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord is grossly misrepresenting what I and others said. What we said was that it is not generally known to the public that the risk can be insured. Also, when despatching a school trunk from the local station I have not seen a notice signed by Lloyd's that I could take out a policy to make certain that it arrived in four days. Of course, the general public do not know anything about this. A big consignor can go to an insurance company. My own insurance company does not cover that loss, but I have no doubt that Lloyd's could. But the ordinary member of the general public who despatches one parcel from the railway does not know anything about insurance.
LORD MITCHISON: I should not wish for worlds to misrepresent the noble Lord. I thought I understood what he said, but clearly I must have misrepresented him. But as to sticking up notices in railway stations, he will not find one about twins if he wants to insure against them.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is still in a position to insure against having twins. If I may revert to my Amendment, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said that its drafting was faulty, but I wondered whether he would consider the principle behind it, whereby consignors should be able to put in a claim when the railways did not honour their undertaking. The only thing the noble Lord said was that it would be possible to take out an insurance policy,

853
and that the cost of this insurance policy would be considered, along with other matters, by the licensing authority. But I should have thought that that would put up the cost of transporting whatever goods were being considered, and that would be regrettable.
I am grateful for the support I received from these Benches, and I am most grateful to noble Lords for bringing out certain points and stressing them after the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, mentioned the question of the insurance policy. I have a feeling that the noble Lord will not reconsider this question, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Revocation and suspension of special authorisations]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 112, line 9, leave out ("a public") and insert ("an").
The noble Lord said: With the consent of your Lordships, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, and 217 together. The 25 Amendments in this group, which include some moved earlier in our discussions and those I propose to move now, are closely inter-related. They are all necessary to implement the undertaking given by the Minister of State during the Commons Report stage that Amendments would be tabled in the Lords to permit of appeals connected with both quality and quantity licensing to the Transport Tribunal. This arrangement replaces that at present in the Bill under which appeals concerning operators' and transport managers' licences would be decided by the Minister along with disciplinary appeals connected with special authorisations, whilst other appeals concerning special authorisations would lie to the Transport Tribunal. Although there are arguments for the proposals at present in the Bill, my right honourable friend the Minister has decided, after careful consideration of the many representations from the interests concerned, to make the change to the Tribunal. The Council on Tribunals and the Transport Tribunal
854
itself have of course been fully consulted, and have expressed agreement.
I am afraid that the somewhat forbidding nature of this list of Amendments is unavoidable. Such a change has consequences for many clauses and Schedules. Indeed, the Minister of State, in explaining why the Government could accept the principle but not the substance of the Opposition's Amendments in the Commons, said:
"I know the honourable gentleman"—
that is Mr. Gordon Campbell—
"will appreciate that many consequential Amendments, which naturally he has not been able to devise, will be required it this is accepted".
Many Amendments, however, involve no more than a substitution of "Transport Tribunal" for "Minister" in the appropriate clauses. It is for this reason that I beg to move the first of this group of Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 211.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 10, leave out ("hold such an inquiry") and insert ("do so").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 212.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 14, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Transport Tribunal").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 213.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 18, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Transport Tribunal").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 214.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 19, leave out ("Minister shall give his") and insert ("tribunal stall give its").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80 [Appeals in connection with special authorizations]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 215.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 26, at end insert—
"() being the holder of a special authorisation in respect of which, or a person in respect of whom, a direction or order has been given or made under section 79(1), (2) or (3) of this Act, is aggrieved by that direction or order; or").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 216.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 30, leave out from ("Tribunal") to end of line 33.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 217.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 40, leave out subsections (3) to (7).—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Consignment notes]:
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 113, line 32, leave out ("in the prescribed form and").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 217A. This Amendment is concerned with consignment notes, and with the provision that they should be "in the prescribed form", which would place a particularly unreasonable burden on the users of transport. Your Lordships are certainly well aware that in a large number of cases consignment notes used when transporting goods are so designed as to meet the user's internal accounting and statistical arrangements. To conform to one particular Government form would in my humble opinion upset the administrative arrangements of a large number of firms, and I am sure that that is not the Government's wish or intention. With those few words I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: We have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, which would prevent the Minister from prescribing the form of consignment notes which have to be carried in all goods vehicles which are the subject of special authorisations. Subsection (1) of Clause 81 permits the Minister to prescribe the form of a consignment note and the particulars which it shall contain. No objection is taken to the prescription of particulars, but the noble Lord who has proposed the Amendment may think that by giving the Minister power to prescribe the form, firms will be prevented from using their own kinds of consignment note, which are sometimes specially designed for the business in which they are engaged. Is that the noble Lord's fear?
LORD MERRIVALE: Yes.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I can give the noble Lord an assurance that there is no intention of laying down a standard form for all consignment notes. Indeed, the power to prescribe a form is merely something to be held in reserve in case serious difficulties arise in enforcement of quantity licensing. It would be possible for a firm, if it so wished, deliberately to use a consignment note which, while containing the prescribed particulars, presented them in a thoroughly obscure and devious fashion. This, of course, would add to the problems of enforcement. But the power that we wish to retain in this Bill is only a reserve power, and is not one for general use.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance, if I understood him aright, that this will in effect be just a reserve power, and that reputable firms will in fact be allowed to use their own consignment notes. Is that correct?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes.
LORD MERRIVALE: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 217B:
Page 115, line 27, leave out ("charged since that date with") and insert ("found guilty of").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the noble Lord for the late hour at which this Amendment was put down. I hope that it will not cause him undue difficulties. Subsection (6) of Clause 82 appears to be put in to safeguard the haulier against inefficiency and undue delay. But it would seem that after five and a half months, possibly of anxiety, a charge could be lodged against a haulier. He might then be kept a further interminable time awaiting a trial at which he might be acquitted. Or perhaps the charge would be withdrawn. I feel that the principle of my Amendment should at least receive consideration, as it will shorten the time that anyone could be kept waiting. I beg to move.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): I appreciate the noble Lord's purpose in moving this Amendment. It is, in short, to avoid unnecessary anxiety to the person who has had documents seized and who therefore may be subject to a charge. But the purpose of Clause 82(6) is to provide a remedy for a person from whom documents have been seized under the power in the first part of the subsection but who has not, within six months of the seizure, been charged with an offence in connection with the documents. Such a person may at the end of that time apply to the magistrates for an order as to the disposal of the seized documents. The point of this provision is that after a lapse of six months no summary proceedings can be initiated. If no one has been charged within that period the seized documents may safely be disposed of, for it will be impossible to bring proceedings in connection with them. So there is no further anxiety on that score.
But the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would he to make it possible for a person who had been charged within the six months but whose case had not yet been decided upon—although there might have been hearings —to apply for the return of the documents which would be very material to the case. Such a situation would be
858
intolerable. There might be cases involving or alleging forgery or falsification of documents, and they might take much longer than six months. There might be indictable offences, heard first in a summary court and then committed to a higher court. Such cases might take longer than six months before being decided, because the preparation would take some time. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted it would be impossible to complete the case because the documents on which the charge rested would be destroyed. I have given two explanations: first, that after six months there is an end to the matter, and if no action is taken there cannot be further anxiety; and, secondly, if an actual case is proceeding it is quite right that the documents should not be destroyed.
LORD BURTON: It seems a very long time to have to wait before a haulier can get the return of the documents, but I have no doubt that the noble Lord has looked at this matter carefully. May I ask whether this also applies to Scotland? I think that in Scotland the period within which a case must come before the courts is longer than six months.
LORD STONHAM: As to those parts of the Bill which apply to Scotland, whatever the law in Scotland, this writ will run. I cannot enter into discussions about the whole of the law of Scotland.
LORD BURTON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clauses 83 and 84 agreed to.
5.55 p.m.
LORD WADE LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 218:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause:
Prevention of jack-knifing
".—(1) All articulated vehicles as designated by this Act or any previous Act shall be required after the appointed day to be constructed in such a manner as to prevent such articulated vehicles from jack-knifing.
(2) All articulated vehicles as designated by this Act or any previous Act and which were constructed before the appointed day shall he required to have fitted to them within six months a device approved by the Minister to prevent such articulated vehicles from jackknifing."
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause concerned with articulated vehicles. I understand that it was selected for debate in another place but owing to the operation of the guillotine the debate did not take place. Therefore it seems all the more fitting that some consideration should be given to it by this Committee. It really falls into the category of road safety; but I am advised that this is the appropriate stage at which this new clause should be inserted. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that all articulated vehicles are fitted with a device which will prevent jackknifing. In drafting this clause it may be that there has been some oversimplification of wording and of the suggested procedure—I agree that oversimplification is not exactly a characteristic of this Bill—but it is the intention behind the moving of this clause that is important.
As noble Lords may be aware, some very tragic accidents have occurred as a result of the jack-knifing of these articulated vehicles. It is not due to negligence on the part of the driver of the car or cars that are hit as a result of an articulated lorry getting out of control. The motorist involved may be driving perfectly properly and carefully. He may be driving in the opposite direction to the lorry. It may be that the vehicles are on a dual carriageway and cars on the other carriageway are involved, suddenly, in a disastrous accident. As I say, this may be no fault of the injured party; and it is not necesarily due to negligence on the part of the driver of the articulated vehicle. The causes are much more complex than that. It can happen where the driver of the articulated lorry is a very experienced driver.
The problem is to provide the right safeguard. There are a variety of conditions which may cause jack-knifing following even normal application of the brake. I have made some study of the technicalities but I shall not attempt to describe them; I do not think it is necessary to do so for the purpose of this Amendment. It is acknowledged that since the Motor Industry Research Association Report in 1963, considerable progress has been made in braking systems; but that alone is not enough. What is required is a device which will automatically counteract the tendency to jack-
860
knife which may result from braking. I am told that a device is now in use which is proving successful in preventing these serious accidents from taking place. As I understand it, the essence of the solution lies in the torsional damping at the king-pin.
I tabled a Question on May 30 of this year in answer to which the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, said that trials were in progress and that the scope of these should be extended. Reference to this is made in col. 1227 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I should like to know what progress has been made. I gained the impression from the Answers I received from the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, that the Government were not yet ready for legislative action but that this would be merely a matter of time. This is a matter of real urgency, especially if it is true—as I believe it to be—that serious and sometimes fatal accidents occur that could have been avoided.
If there is to be legislation, what form will it take? It would appear to me appropriate that it should be incorporated somewhere in this Bill. If not, how long will it be before some action will be taken on this matter? I hope that it will not be deferred indefinitely. I feel sure that the Government will not say "Thank goodness we have got rid of the Transport Bill and we need not worry any more", because this problem is a worrying one. If it is not to be dealt with under this Bill, may I ask how it will be dealt with? Will there be amending legislation to the Road Safety Act 1967, or to this Bill? Alternatively, are there powers to deal with this matter by regulation, once it is clear that a satisfactory device is available? I do not think it necessary to elaborate on this. Other speakers from the Liberal Benches have made clear that we are concerned about road safety. I think this is a practical example of a need for greater safety which could and should be met. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 84, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Wade.)
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Wade. This matter particularly affects my country, Scotland where we have one main road from the North to the South, the A.9: and a very inferior road it is,

861
too. I have seen traffic on that road held up for a matter of four or five hours in the winter because one lorry has jackknifed. Nothing could get past, and had any driver tried to do so, he would have gone over a precipice on one side or into a cliff on the other. I expect the noble Lord will know that this stretch of road is between Dunkeld and Pitlochry. This is a matter of great importance to us.
EARL HOWE: I support the Amendment on the grounds of road safety and common sense. I read in the evening paper to-night that owing to jack-knifing an articulated vehicle was involved in an accident at Hammersmith. The unfortunate driver was extricated from the vehicle with a severed leg, and I think that the traffic was held up for something like three hours. This, as has been said already, is a kind of accident which occurs frequently and is caused, obviously, by the sudden application of the brakes and a rather quick alteration of course. That can cause a vehicle of that description to jack-knife. It is possible to make a vehicle safe so that it cannot jack-knife or, if it does, that it is a very rare occurrence. I suggest, purely on the grounds of road safety, that if possible we should do something about it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that noble Lords would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in his desire to incorporate something in the Bill which would avoid serious accidents, but the point that occurs to me is whether anything has yet been sufficiently proved to prevent lorries from jack-knifing. I know that a good deal of research has been undertaken, but I should have thought that at present it is premature to think that there are any proved methods available which can be incorporated in respect of all vehicles of this kind. There would not be much point in putting forward an Amendment which might encourage people to fit the wrong sort of equipment on their lorries.
LORD STONHAM: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has had the chance of raising this matter, because it is obviously one with which we are all very much concerned. I have often discussed transport matters with the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, and I have never disagreed with him. I hope that we shall
862
keep that state of affairs this evening. I agree with what he said about the difficulties. It is a question not only o traffic congestion, but of the ghastly accidents which may be caused by jack-knifing. I agree that it is a most urgent and important matter. I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there is yet a cure, or that we could do something immediately. If he disagrees with that, I should be glad to have details.
Jack-knifing involves the tractor part of an articulated vehicle folding hack on to the semi-trailer. The alternative cause of such an accident, although we describe them all by the same name, is trailer-swinging, which involves the trailer portion of the vehicle swinging round out of line with the tractor. Generally, as I understand it, the causes are insufficient adhesion of the rear wheels of the tractor, which is jack-knifing, or insufficient adhesion of the trailer wheels, which is trailer-swing. Accidents may also he caused by rapid changes in direction when negotiating a bend, or by unwanted wheel locking when braking.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, in his characteristically gentle way, that there might be some over-simplification of drafting in his Amendment. The clause, as drafted, is unrealistic because it draws no distinction between jackknifing before an accident and jackknifing after impact; it speaks me rely of jack-knifing. There is a very important difference between the two, particularly if we are thinking in terms of legislation, as we undoubtedly are. It is not possible, subject to what may be said by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to prevent jack-knifing or trailer-swing after an articulated vehicle has had an accident involving the hard striking of son e solid object. Therefore we have to confine ourselves to, and my right honourable friend the Minister is concerned to prevent, jack-knifing before an accident, if that is possible. It is a point of substance. Any legislation would have to attempt to recognise this by drawing a disinction between before and after.
The noble Lord asked how are we to deal with it. My noble friend Lord Addison suggested that it might not be something which we could incorporate in this Bill. Already the Minisier has adequate powers, under Section 64 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 and Section

863
10 of the Road Traffic Act 1967, to impose by regulation requirements about how articulated vehicles should be constructed and equipped with a view to preventing jack-knifing. So far, these powers have not been used because there is no known infallible remedy to prevent jack-knifing before an accident. Assuming that there is, or may be, the clause is to that extent unrealistic. As my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton said on May 30, a great deal of progress has been made towards solving the problem, and I am glad to say that co-operation between the Ministry of Transport, vehicle manufacturers and operators, and brake manufacturers is already ensuring that new vehicles are being so constructed as at least to minimise the likelihood of jack-knifing. But the development, proving and production of anti-jack-knifing devices suitable for the wide variety of types of articulated vehicle in use has a good way to go before there could be any question of compulsory use.
It is by no means established yet that it will be practicable to equip all these vehicles effectively. It also has to be established not only that the devices are effective in controlling jack-knifing but that they do the job without causing other difficulties or problems—for example, with steering. There are real risks of this which can be guarded against only by large-scale and prolonged trials under a wide range of operating conditions.
The Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Technology are actively promoting these trials. More particularly, arrangements have been made for fitting 77 British Road Services vehicles for trial purposes with one type of device for preventing wheel-locking, and these arrangements are well advanced. Other anti-jack-knifing devices will be subjected to trials as soon as the equipment and the vehicles are available. There is nothing between us on this matter. We are all together in wanting to solve the problem so far as possible. When we have, through trials, arrived at what is satisfactory, and when, if that stage comes, there is the possibility of having compulsion, the powers are there to impose compulsion by regulation. Let us hope that the day is not far distant.
6.10 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: May I ask the noble Lord a question or two? I thought it probable that the Minister had power to deal with the construction aspect of this question. That is what the Amendment is about. I am sure that the noble Lord will not mind my saying that it is perhaps too widely drawn, but that does not matter. What worries me is what we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie. Let us think of a lonely Scottish road, where such an accident would not only cause a traffic jam but also a great deal of danger before anybody could get there to put lights on or take proper precautions. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell me if there is power in proper cases to prevent articulated vehicles, where the risk of jack-knifing has not been minimised or where it still exists in spite of having been minimised, going along roads where they would expose everybody to inconvenience and risk if they were involved in this kind of accident. It is not the sort of question I can expect my noble friend to answer off the cuff. I should like to know the answer, and I expect from the look in the noble Earl's eye that he would rather like to hear the answer, too. If my noble friend cannot give us an answer now, perhaps he will give us one later.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his full and interesting answer on this point, which I think worries everybody, because there are such particularly unpleasant accidents from the jack-knifing of articulated vehicles. But he gave the answer I rather expected —that is, that the Minister has the power but at present there is not the state of mechanical development which makes its use realistic. I dare say that other noble Lords besides myself have received representations from the manufacturing industry expressing alarm if this obligation were put on them. I do not think that that is any reason for the Ministry not continuing to keep up the pressure, because this is a matter of general concern. But it is an enormously difficult thing to do.
I am content to accept the assurance the noble Lord has given that the Ministry is keeping up the presssure. I was encouraged to hear that they are making

865
field-scale experiments with B.R.S. vehicles to try out these devices. I am sure that that should be done. Gradually we shall get something better than we have now and perhaps we shall reduce the terrible severity of these accidents. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, seems to have served a useful purpose in giving us this opportunity of expressing the strength of our feelings about this and supporting the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in what he is doing.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for his support. If I may venture to answer my noble friend Lord Mitchison, although I thought that the road to Pitlochry was a little wider, there are two answers. My noble friend's first question was: Has the Minister power to order the construction of vehicles in such a way as to prevent jack-knifing? My noble friend said that that was the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: That was not the question I asked.
LORD STONHAM: I only want one "cuff" at a time. I want to answer the question as I understand it, and if I am wrong my noble friend can ask another question afterwards. The Minister can have no power to prevent jack-knifing occurring after an accident. But under the two Acts I mentioned the Minister has power to order vehicles to be so constructed as to minimise jack-knifing and to insist on that being done. But before he can make such orders, he has to be sure that an appropriate machine has been invented, and we have not reached that position.
LORD MITCHISON: I will avail myself of the opportunity my noble friend gave me. That was not the question I asked. The question I asked was: Is there power to prevent vehicles which are liable to this kind of accident using roads where such an accident might cause abnormal inconvenience or risk? I had in mind the narrow Highland roads, often the only means of communication for miles around, where a hold-up of traffic might cause great inconvenience. I do not want my noble friend to answer now, but I should like him to write to me afterwards, if he would be so kind.
LORD WADE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his courteous reply. It would seem that the distinction between jack-knifing before and after an accident is a valid point. I am not an expert, and I appreciate that this may not be clear from the Amendment which I moved. The noble Lord informed us of the study that is taking place. I should like to be assured that all modern devices have been tested. I have been given a considerable amount of literature and information about one device. I never like to use this House (or another place, when I was in it) to advertise particular projects, but I am informed that a device is in use and is safeguarding accidents. Therefore, I should like to be assured that any device in use on articulated vehicles is being carefully studied by the Ministry. I am glad to hear that power exists, and I hope that it will be used when the Ministry is satisfied. Before I withdraw my Amendment, I should like to give the noble Lord an opportunity to answer the point about the study.
LORD STONHAM: I can say that any invention will be tried on an extensive scale for prolonged periods. We are as anxious as anyone in the industry to find a solution. With regard to the question put to me by my noble friend Lord Mitchison, I am sorry that I did not understand him in the first place. The answer is: Yes, there are powers, both national and local. In regard to his detailed question, I will write to him as he suggested.
LORD WADE: I am sure this has been a useful debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Inquiries]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 220. This Amendment was discussed with No. 178, to which it is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 30, leave out ("a public") and insert ("an").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 221.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 32, at end insert—
("() Subject to any provision made by regulations, any inquiry held by a licensing authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act or Schedule 9 thereto shall be held in public.
() Information with respect to any particular trade or business which is given at any such inquiry while admission to the inquiry is restricted in accordance with regulations shall not, so long as that trade or business continues to be carried on, be disclosed except—

(a) with the consent of the person for the time being carrying on that trade or business; or

(b) for the purpose of the discharge by any person of his functions under this Part of this Act or Schedule 9 thereto; or

(c) with a view to the institution of, or otherwise for the purposes of, any legal proceedings pursuant to or arising out of this Part of this Act or Schedule 9 thereto (including proceedings before the Transport Tribunal);

and any person who discloses any information in contravention of this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 222.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
Provisions relating to Transport Tribunal
(".—(1) On an appeal to the Transport Tribunal under this Part of this Act or Schedule 9 thereto against the decision of any licensing authority, the tribunal shall have power to make such order as it thinks fit and any such order shall be binding on the licensing authority.
(2) For the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction of the Transport Tribunal under this Part of this Act and Schedule 9 thereto—

(a) the Road Haulage Appeals Division of the tribunal shall consist of the president of the tribunal and two members of the tribunal of whom one shall be a person of experience in transport business or commercial affairs and the other a person of experience in financial matters or economics; and

(b) that Division or any person or persons appointed under section 57(5) of the Act of 1962 may be assisted by an assessor drawn from a panel of persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor for that purpose after consultation with the Minister and the Secretary of State;

868
and the provisions of paragraph 6(2) and (3) of Schedule 10 to the Act of 1962 shall apply to a member of that panel as they apply to a member of the special panel nominated by the Lord Chancellor, and paragraph 8(1) of that Schedule shall apply to a person giving such assistance as aforesaid as it applies to a person who is appointed from the special panel.
(3) The Transport Tribunal may remit the whole or any part of any fee in respect of an appeal to the tribunal under this Part of this Act or Schedule 9 thereto if the applicant satisfies the tribunal that by reason of his poverty it is reasonable so to do.
(4) An appeal to the Transport Tribunal from a decision of the licensing authority for an area in Scotland shall be heard in Scotland.").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Regulations and orders for purposes of Part V]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 223.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 29, leave out from ("authorisations") to end of line 30.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91 [Interpretation of Part V]:
6.20 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 224A:
Page 121, line 9, at end insert ("but construction centres shall not be deemed to be operating centres, unless vehicles are intended to be based or centred on such sites for 12 months or more").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 224A. Clause 90 is the definition clause, the interpretation of Part V, and the Amendment is to amend the definition of "operating centre" which now stands in the clause. It is perhaps relevant to mention that the definition of "operating centre" was altered on the Report stage in another place without the opportunity to debate the effect of the change; and the change is quite significant. The Amendment which I am now moving would, to some extent, meet the effect of the Amendment on the Report stage in another place,

869
and I think makes quite plain what the intention is. The Amendment says:
"but construction centres shall not be deemed to be operating centres, unless vehicles are intended to be based or centred on such sites for 12 months or more."
This is to meet the needs of the construction industry, who are concerned about the definition as it now stands. The construction industry, of course, open up sites all over the place, often at some distance from their main headquarters, especially the bigger firms, and usually they are there for at least a year, and sometimes longer.
As the Bill is drafted, whenever a construction site is kept in operation for more than three months a separate operator's licence would be required for it; and possibly, if the traffic commissioner required it, a separate transport manager's licence would also have to be applied for. This seems to be rather an unnecessary procedure for what must be in the general course of the building industry, and the effect of this Amendment would be to relieve this situation so that the construction firm would have 12 months before these necessities arose. That, I believe, would generally assist the working of the construction industry.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has told us quite clearly the object of this Amendment, which, in his words, is to relieve construction firms of the obligation of sending their vehicles for maintenance and servicing to the centre of the firm unless they are going to be on a site for 12 months or more. The Amendment refers to "construction centres", but I am quite sure the noble Lord meant "construction sites"—not that that is anything between friends. I am afraid that the idea behind the Amendment is not acceptable. One of the essentials, and to me one of the most important essentials, of this Bill is safety. This Amendment, in our view, would relax the controls of quality licensing for construction vehicles to an inordinate degree. The basis of that system is that safety should be kept under close control by the local licensed operating centres and the appointment of licensed managers there. Concessions have already been made in the Bill to the construction industry by allowing vehicles to operate up to three
870
months under an existing licence when they are transferred to the operating centre.
The amount of work needed on vehicles in the construction industry is very heavy, because they get so bashed about; they need a high degree of maintenance and inspection and supervision by skilled motor engineers. We feel it is not unreasonable when the vehicles are still stationed at a new centre after three months that a local licence should be taken out and a manager appointed to supervise the maintenance of them. This will not mean that maintenance facilities will have to be provided at every construction site. We appreciate that this would be unnecessary and, indeed, impossible. What will be needed is that someone on the site will have to undertake the responsibility of seeing that the vehicles are sent for maintenance to the regional or central maintenance depot or to a local garage. It may mean an increase in paper work over the present system, but surely that is a small price to pay for improved safety. I hope that we may have the co-operation of noble Lords in ensuring that these safety measures, when they are reasonable and necessary, shall remain in the Bill.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his reply to this point. I think he is stretching the safety requirements a little in this respect. Of course, we are all with him in wanting to increase and improve road safety. He referred to the point of the difference between the supervision of the safety factors by the local licensing authority as opposed to the licensing authority of the head-quarters of the construction firm. He sets that against the extra paper work and extra expense that would be involved in the construction firm's applying for an operating licence, and probably a transport manager's licence, in the new area. That is not insignificant, and it is right to weigh it objectively against such safety factor as there is here.
After all, what we are talking about is pretty well every construction site that a building firm or construction firm opens up anywhere in the country, unless it is something quite close to their headquarters and in the same area. There-fore, the matter is not insignificant,

871
looked at on the national scale, and this requirement would add some element of cost, even if only a small one. I think that the noble Lord's case is at the most not more than marginally made out; but this is not something on which I should wish to divide the Committee. However, I feel it is right to press it fairly hard on the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that he is putting an additional burden on the construction industry here and it will make for additional cost. I shall just have to leave it there, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 91 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT SIMON: Before this clause is passed, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham (perhaps it is a little unfair), whether he recalls that at an earlier stage I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who was then speaking for the Government, whether, for the avoidance of doubt, it would not be desirable to have a specific definition of "road" in this clause. It arose out of the discussion on an Amendment moved by a noble Lord opposite, who wanted to refer to "public roads". The argument was that roads were already defined. The point is that roads are defined only by inference from the last two lines of subsection (1), which says:
"any expression not defined above which is also used in the Act of 1960 has the same meaning as in that Act".
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, did not have the clause in front of him at the time, but he said, if my recollection is right, that if it was not clear it certainly ought to be made clear. I do not know whether he left the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, a note on this point.
LORD STONHAM: I regret that I was not present when the noble Viscount raised this matter with my noble friend, and therefore I am not aware of the position. I am quite sure that if my noble friend gave an assurance on that point, it is being attended to. But on one or two of the later Amendments tonight we shall be discussing the question of roads, and at least in part I shall be able to clear up the point for the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Transitional provisions and amendments]:
6.32 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 224B:
Page 124, line 18, at end insert ("where a special authorisation is refused in circumstances which would cause hardship the Licensing Authority may grant a special authorisation for a limited period to alleviate such hardship.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 224B. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, when replying to my Amendment No. 207B, gave an assurance that when quantity licences were called in, or were not renewed, so that undue hardship was caused, there would be grounds for compensation. In view of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be able favourably to consider this Amendment, which makes provision for an alleviation of hardship by allowing the licensing authority to grant a special authorisation for a limited period should a refusal cause undue hardship to the firm concerned. This would seem to me to be a reasonable request, for there could be cases of small hauliers' being unduly badly hit by refusal on the part of the licensing authority to grant a full-period special authorisation. I think that what I am asking now is reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said earlier on that there was provision for compensation. What I am asking for now is that there should be a provision for an alleviation of hardship. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, seeks by this Amendment to empower the licensing authority, in any case where he would otherwise have refused to grant a special authorisation, to grant one for a limited period if in his view hardship would otherwise result. Under Clause 74 the licensing authority must grant the authorisation if satisfied that carriage by rail would be less advantageous to the consignor in terms of speed, reliability and cost and assurances to that end have been given in another place, and have

873
been repeated again to-day by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom. And these factors, as my noble friend said, will be interpreted very widely. I recognise, however, that the provision does not refer to the advantage or otherwise of the public haulier who carries goods on behalf of someone else. I think this is the point the noble Lord has in mind.
The Amendment, if accepted, would allow a licensing authority to take account of hardship to such a haulier. But, in our view, the Amendment would weaken quantity licensing to a quite unacceptable degree, because it would allow the licensing authority to take account not merely of hardship to the consignor if the goods were sent by rail, as the Bill already does, but also hardship to the public haulier. Probably in most, if not all, cases where a public haulier was refused an authorisation he would be able to contend with some reason that the resulting loss of business caused him hardship—the loss of a customer or part of a customer's work. If his contention were accepted, and if all such contentions were accepted—if everywhere the licensing authority decided that there must be no loss of business to the road haulier—the effective introduction of quantity licensing would be inevitably postponed —it might be for ever. This of course may well be what the noble Lord has in mind, but it certainly is not consonant with the purpose of the Bill or of this clause.
I would remind the noble Lord that there is already one case in the Bill which provides that such hardship should be taken into account. Subsection (5)(a) of Clause 93 allows the Minister, by regulation, to direct licensing authorities to call in "A","B" and "C" licences before their normal date of expiry, if he wishes to hasten the change-over to quantity licensing. If this happens any operator whose licence is called in, and who fails to obtain a special authorisation under the ordinary criteria of speed, reliability and cost, can ask the licensing authority to take financial hardship into account as an additional criterion. The licensing authority can in these circumstances grant a special authorisation, which would expire on a date no later than the date on which the called-in licence would normally have expired. In view of the fact that adequate notice will he given to operators about the start-
874
ing date of quantity licensing, and of the existence of a concession already in the Bill to deal with hardship, the Amendment is unnecessary.
As your Lordships know, when I was speaking on the Benches opposite I was constantly and persistently drawing attention to the special advantages which the road haulage industry enjoyed, at the taxpayers' expense, as compared with rail. We are now in some ways redressing that gross disadvantage. If in the process some hauliers get less business, and if this is done properly, in the sense that the business will be transferred to the railway without causing any hardship to the consignor in the way of flexibility, cost, convenience or speed, surely that is a good thing for the country as a whole. That is the object of this Part of this Bill, and it is something that I think we ought to support. Therefore, apart from the case that is provided for, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that there is any case for the kind of hardship which is the substance of this Amendment; and I hope that, however unhappy he may feel about that, he will nevertheless feel it just and that the Amendment should not be pressed.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his reply. I had particularly in mind the hardships, not so much of the consignor but of the haulier. If I understood the noble Lord aright, he said, in effect, that if there was undue hardship then under the Bill as it stands the licensing authority would be empowered to grant a special authorisation so that the haulier would not be pressed or pushed out of business. In view of that, and also because the noble Lord said that my Amendment was unnecessary, as, in effect, it was to some extent covered by the provisions of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 93 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I put one question to the noble Lord on subsection (5) and the power on behalf of the licensing authority to order that a licence shall expire on a date earlier than that on which it would have expired normally? The noble Lord, in his last speech,

875
referred to this point in passing and gave the impression that this power would be used only in order to space out, as I understood him, the licensing procedure. In other words, if a licensing authority found that it was more convenient to call in existing licences, and so allow the special authorisation procedure to begin earlier than it would otherwise do in these particular cases, then it could do so.
The first point that occurs clearly is that it must be possible for licensing authorities to find out and to know now at what point existing licences will fall in. I wonder whether the Government are aware of that, and whether they have prepared information for the separate licensing areas. I take it that the licensing authorities themselves could do this. They must know when the licences are going to fall in, so that they can know right away when this is going to happen. It does not very much matter to an individual if, in the end, he gets the special authorisation, but it matters quite a lot if he does not get it. Subsection (6) recognises that in that case there is hardship, and in cases of severe hardship operators will be allowed to carry on the existing licence to the normal date of expiry if it is decided not to give the special authorisation.
I think it is important to know whether there is any other reason than simply the convenience of the licensing authority for the calling in of existing licences before their date of expiry. As the clause is drafted, it does not limit the power to that specific reason. I should have thought that as a matter of drafting it would be right to make plain the reason for which these licences can be expressed to expire earlier than the normal date. This must be a matter of importance to operators, especially in regard to the planning of their own future.
It is also important that a reasonable interval should be given, and expressed to be given in the Bill itself, before the existing licence could expire. I do not know what consideration has been given to this point, but it seems to me quite clear that it is going to be somewhat hard on an operator who is given only a month's notice. From the date of the expiry he would have his three weeks in order to make his further application
876
for a special authorisation, but the shortness of the whole period might seriously affect the planning of his operations. I hope, therefore, that this special provision will be exercised with very great restraint. Indeed, I find it difficult to see why it should be necessary at all, because presumably the existing licences are fairly evenly spaced out throughout the year, and in fact over a period of years. But should it be necessary, it seems to me that a reasonable period of notice should be given.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord was quite right in his exposition, as it were, of subsection (6) of the clause, when he said that, on termination of a licence before time (if the licensing authority so proposed) the proposed calling in of the licence could be deferred to the end of the original period on the grounds of hardship. That was a matter to which I referred in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. On the general point that he has now raised, I agree it is a matter of the greatest importance, and particularly to the road hauliers; and certainly the last thing I would wish is that there should be any inherent injustice—other than what might be regarded as injustice (though I do not accept it as injustice) arising directly from this change of policy.
However, I think there is some misconception in what the noble Lord says, because he speaks of individual operators. I know that in the last analysis it is the individual operators with whom we are concerned, but the Minister has undertaken—and if the noble Lord is not aware of it, I give the assurance now—that adequate notice will be given to operators per se about the starting date of quantity licensing. Nothing with regard to an individual can be done until there is a starting date for the system as a whole. In view of that fact, that adequate notice will be given, and the existence of the concession in the Bill to deal with hardship, I feel that the position is satisfactory.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his further reply, may I say that in the last four hours we have traversed quite a large number of points in connection with this Part of the Bill and quantity licensing, and it is obvious that

877
there are very many and very serious anxieties still remaining with regard to many parts of it. There must be general relief all round on the Government Benches that the Bill as it now stands cannot come into operation until 1972.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Amendments consequential on Part V]:
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment and the subsequent ones were formally dealt with together with Amendment No. 180 moved by my noble friend, Lord Winterbottom. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 225 to 231.
Amendments moved—
Page 228, leave out lines 25 to 34.
Page 229, line 45, at end insert ("and Schedule 9 thereto").
Page 229, line 50, after ("of") insert ("or Schedule 9 to").
Page 230 line 4, at end insert ("and Schedule 9 thereto").
Page 232, line 7, after ("of") insert ("and Schedule 9 to").
Page 232, line 13, after ("of") insert ("or Schedule 9 to").
Page 232, line 16, column 2, after ("of") insert ("and Schedule 9 to").(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94 [Vehicles and drivers subject to control under Part VI]:
6.50 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 231A:
Page 125, line 20, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Duke said: I beg to move this Amendment. I put it down for three reasons: first, because I wondered whether this particular subsection was really necessary. It does not seem to add anything constructive to the Bill. In fact, I should have thought that it was more suitable in the Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill. I think this can be said for it: that it adds a pious hope and it explains the reasons for this Part of the Bill. All the same, I am surprised that it actually appears in the body of the Bill, although I fully recognise that
878
this is not the first Bill of this sort in which this sort of thing has appeared. I think the 1960 Act had almost the identical preamble before the particular section on this subject. But I should have thought that with an already overloaded Bill we might have made an economy of print and got rid of these six lines or so. Secondly, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whether this limitation of drivers' hours has been based on a scientific study, or whether it is purely because of Socialist dogma that we have suddenly had this limitation of hours. Thirdly, and I think most important, is to try to generate a general discussion on fatigue and how it is related to accidents in this country.
On the first point I have nothing further to say. On the second point, the effect of this Part of the Bill will be to increase substantially the cost of road transport as opposed to rail transport, especially in the more remote areas where the railways are thin on the ground, anyway. It will also obviously enormously increase the cost of long-distance coaches. Once again, this will give the railways a cost advantage which they certainly do not possess at the moment. Let me hasten to add that I am no defender of coaches as such: I would much rather go by rail. But I recognise that there are considerable savings in money on most long-distance coach routes, and I feel that this Part of the Bill may do much to reduce those savings and thereby make travel more difficult for the poorer people of our community.
On my third point, especially in regard to buses and coaches, there is little evidence of fatigue contributing to accidents to any appreciable extent. I should like your Lordships for a moment to imagine that you are international runners in, say, the three-mile race. You train the whole time, and you gradually become fitter and fitter and you find it less and less exhausting to run three miles. If you suddenly tried to run three miles to-day, probably you would fail to complete the course and would have an accident, even if it consisted only of lying in the gutter exhausted before you got to the end of your route. The average coach driver and lorry driver is much like the fully-trained, fit three-mile runner. He has been specially trained for his job he is used to it, and he is thoroughly fit. The

879
people one would expect to be dangerous on the road through fatigue are the private car owners who normally do not drive for more than an hour or two at a time, but who suddenly decide, because it is their annual holiday, to drive from London to Cornwall or to the Highlands of Scotland in one day. These are the people whom one would expect to be the most dangerous on the roads. Yet this Bill does nothing, and in my opinion quite rightly, to try to curtail their driving. All it does is to try to curtail the driving of individuals who are fit and trained for their particular job.
To give your Lordships a few figures in regard to accidents that are due to fatigue in this country, in the case of public service vehicles, buses and coaches, 21 accidents per million vehicles at risk were alleged to be due to driver fatigue. This represented two accidents during the year 1965. It compared with 6,691 accidents per million vehicles at risk which were due to a slippery road or some such consideration. In the case of goods vehicles the comparison is 51 per million vehicles at risk which were due to driver fatigue, and 6,258 due to slippery roads or some such allied cause. So your Lordships can see that a quite small percentage of the accidents are due to alleged driver fatigue.
Some work has been done experimentally on hours when drivers are most prone to accident, but this is quite inconclusive, and none of it shows any dramatic rise or fall after a man has been for more than seven hours at the wheel of his vehicle. It certainly does not show that people's driving deteriorates markedly after a long stint at the wheel. That is quite interesting.
There are many other considerations. For instance, some work by Colquhoun and Corcoram appears to show that circadian variations in arousal may be different for introverts from what they are for extroverts, the latter being less alert during the early part of the day. Therefore, a further prediction is that fatigue could be incurred differently by drivers of different personalities and temperaments. Obviously, it would be quite impossible to legislate for this, and quite rightly there is nothing in the Bill to say that introverts should drive only in the
880
morning and extroverts in the evening. That would be patently quite impossible.
It is further argued by the Government that the present law dating back to 1930 must be out of date, but I should like to point out that these vehicles are nowadays much easier to drive than they were in 1930. My noble friend Lord Teviot is going to give some practical examples of this. He has had much more experience—in fact a great deal of experience—of this. I must admit to having no experience of driving a public service vehicle, for the simple reason that I have not a public service vehicle licence, but the vehicles have been enormously improved and are much easier and much less fatiguing to drive than they were in 1930.
This problem has been looked at by the Committee of Deputies of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport. They have made an analysis of all accidents involving coaches on international journeys in 1966, and they could find only one case where suspicion even arose that fatigue might be the cause, and that was not accepted in the verdict at the inquest. The White Paper on Road Safety (Command 3339), said that it was essential to sweep aside haphazard observations and hunches. Have the Government done this on this occasion and in this case? It seems not. I therefore suggest that they should drop the whole of Clauses 94 and 95 and concentrate on the real causes of road accidents, which are bad roads and other allied factors, and bad driving not necessarily due to fatigue.
Incidentally, I should like to congratulate the Government on the success of the breathalyser. I feel that everyone must admit that this has been a success and has had a marked effect in reducing accidents since it has been in operation. But if the Government do not do as I suggest, there is a danger that this will be seen as yet another attempt by them to drive traffic, both goods and passengers, off the roads and on to the railways by artificially raising the price of road transport. I hope that this discussion will be fruitful and that we shall hear from the Minister that they have done serious scientific study into the question of driver fatigue of professional drivers, and that it shows that these drivers deteriorate after nine or ten hours. I have been

881
unable to find this out for myself. I beg to move.
7.0 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: The noble Lords opposite are usually most kindly persons, and I am bound to say that I was a little surprised by some of the things said in support of this Amendment. Let us first get rid of the point that there is nothing to be gained from expressing the intention of this Part of the Bill in a subsection at the beginning of it. Of course, the effect of taking out a subsection of that kind is to allow courts to apply the provisions of this Part of the Bill, some of which are penal in character, in cases where they would not wish to apply them if they did not really hit at the mischief aimed at, and it is often advisable for that sort of reason to state generally the mischief that you are trying to meet.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Would the noble Lord forgive me? Perhaps I did not explain that I put down this Amendment more to induce a general discussion on driver fatigue than because I was seriously going to press it to a Division. I quite agree with the noble Lord it would not be suitable to press the Amendment to a Division, and I fully appreciate his point.
LORD MITCHISON: I do not mind if the noble Lord's first point disappears by contradiction or by agreement, but it was his first point, and I am sure that what he really had in mind was the second and larger point. Somebody once said (I hope I am not breaking too many Rules of Order) that there were "lies, damn lies, and statistics", and if statistics show that a man does not drive any worse because he is overtired, then I would regard them as the kind of statistics to which that observation was directed.
There is occasionally room for quite a lot of horsesense about this kind of subject, and I am sure we all know, and have felt it ourselves in our own lives, that after a time people get overtired and are bound to drive worse. And it is for that reason that there has for a long time been provision about maximum hours of work. I hope the Tory Party will not be false to their best traditions. They sometimes forget that they were the Party which in the beginning of the 19th century introduced art eight hour day—with
882
considerable limitations, it is true—and that they took a leading part in preventing, for instance, the employment of children on hauling wagons full of coal underground. We have a murky past in this respect, and I hope the Party opposite will never be false to themselves and forget that they player their part in those days in trying to get people decently treated.
There are two points here. One is the man himself; and the other, of course, is the public. This is surely common to all of us. I remember very well a man in my former constituency who came up once and talked to me about hours, and, to cut a long story short, what he said was that he was deliberately over-working. He knew that he was over-working; he knew he was doing it to the extent of causing himself a certain amount of physical damage, because at that moment he very badly wanted to make some more money. It may be said that anyone ought to be free to do that. I take leave to doubt it. He certainly ought not to be able to do it when it is a question of road safety. That kind of thing makes men do things that are just as much against the public interest as many things which are obviously more wrong and more wicked.
I feel certain that noble Lords opposite, in their hearts, agree with this, and I hope they will not get themselves too much under the heel of the road hauliers. The road hauliers are by no means always right, and this is a case where their record is not too good. The trouble has not been with the big companies, as a rule, but with the smaller ones. Those of us who have had any experience of this kind of thing, must know of cases in the country districts (I do not know so much about London) where small firms have pushed people into driving quite undue hours—undue hours from the point of view of the good of the men themselves and of the safety of the public. This question of public safety is a highly important one. We ought not to have noble Lords opposite—if they do not mind my being slightly—only slightly—impertinent —getting up and even appearing to defend that kind of thing. They will not stand for it, in fact, and if they themselves employed people I feel certain that they would never do it. There is an Amendment later about sporting activities that

883
caused me to hesitate for a moment, but perhaps that is not too serious.
On the main point, there can be no question that some provision must be made in a matter of this sort about hours, and it is amply justified not only by common sense but also by experience of many years. We are not for the moment considering whether these provisions go too far in some cases, or do not go far enough, or anything of that sort: we are considering only the broad question of whether it is only Socialist prejudice to say that people ought not to tire themselves driving, and that if they do they become a danger to the public. I am full of Socialist prejudice; I wish it were all as sound as that particular bit.
LORD TEVIOT: There is very little at the moment that I would add to this most interesting discussion on drivers' hours instigated by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. From my own experience I cannot think of one single accident caused by fatigue. As I said on Second Reading, the main cause of accidents was the driving of "young bloods" in motor cars (happily it can be said that the transport drivers are generally more experienced) who were being extremely careless and not paying attention. I consider it much more important for firms to watch the general state of health of their drivers than to make a cut in the hours. In the case of P.S.V. drivers they are statutorily tested by their company doctor every year when they are 60, and twice a year when they are 65. The doctors naturally pay great attention to their cardiac condition and blood pressure. It is extremely rare for a driver to be stopped from driving, though it does happen. I recall one particular case when a very corpulent and florid looking driver was taken off, despite his indignation. The doctors stood firm; the man was not allowed to drive again for three weeks, until he had lost a good deal of weight. Therefore I deem it much more important to have spasmodic medical checks than to alter the present system of hours, which at the moment works quite satisfactorily.
I should like to make one or two comments on what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has said. I would suggest that his constituent would be much better,
884
rather than having his hours cut, to see his doctor. About undue hours of work, I was always told by my own firm that any overtime you did was for your benefit; you were not benefiting the company, you did the overtime because you wanted the money.
7.9 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, made it clear that he put down this Amendment to encourage a general discussion, and I very much welcome that suggestion, because this is the first Amendment on Part VI of the Bill, and some of us indulge hopes that we shall complete Part VI to-night at not too late an hour. Therefore, if we have a general discussion now there is a faint hope that it might curtail at least some of the speeches on individual points that we raise later. I was delighted to hear the congratulations from the noble Duke to the Government upon the great success of the breathalyser test. He will forgive me if I say that it brought to my mind the tremendous spate of opposition, criticism and obloquy that faced the Government for months on end when we instituted the breathalyser test. Some of the criticism came from the Benches opposite, although in restrained tones. Now we receive—and we are grateful for—the noble Lord's congratulations. We know there has been at least a 20 per cent. cut in the number of fatal accidents and injured. Overall, from the point of view of safety, the question of drivers' hours is equally important.
It might be helpful if at this stage I were to say a few words about Part VI of the Bill as a whole. It is a complicated Part of the Bill, and I make no apology for that because its complexity flows from the need to have flexibility in the working of the new rules concerning drivers' hours. It is worth looking at the proposal as a whole before we get involved in the detail. The noble Duke spoke about the effects of the curtailment in the hours worked by drivers. Let us first consider what those hours are and how they compare with the present day. The first thing we learn is that they have not been changed for forty years. A totally different set of circumstances now operates on the roads. Forty years ago when I took a large car out, I took a quart of oil to put in after 50 miles; and travelling at 30 m.p.h. one passed most

885
things on the road. There was very little real traffic worth talking about. And yet the same conditions apply to drivers to-day, when on many weekends the roads are almost unusable because of the density of traffic. The rules of forty years ago apply at present to all lorry, bus and coach drivers, with very few exceptions.
What hours can a lorry driver legally work? A lorry, bus or coach driver can work for his employer for 14 hours a day seven days a week, legally. This is the situation which we are considering. This is the situation which we are being asked to preserve in the Amendments we shall be dealing with. This is the kind of thing which in this civilised country of ours we are asked to continue to tolerate: 98 hours work a week out of 168 hours day and night in every week. He may not drive or do any work in connection with his vehicle or his load for more than eleven of the 14 hours. But there is nothing to stop him doing other work: for his employer during the remaining three hours. Furthermore, he can spread the 11 hours of driving over the 14 hours so that he can be at the wheel of his vehicle, perhaps a heavy lorry or double-decker bus full of passengers, during the 14th hour after first signing on for the day. In other words, he can start at 8 o'clock in the morning and still be at work after 11 at night and he can do this every day in a seven-day week.
The noble Duke spoke about an Olympic athlete who trains, reaches a peak of perfection and on the great day achieves great deeds. He likened him to our bus drivers. I thought that it was a very fair comparison. They do great deeds every day, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that they are safe and wonderful drivers. But if we are having the analogy of an Olympic athlete, these bus drivers do not do their great deeds and then go off and have a few pints and go out of training. They do it seven days a week, 365 days a year. Legally, they can do this. This is what we are asked to perpetuate. These are terribly long hours in to-day's traffic conditions, even for professional drivers who can cope with these things better than those of us who drive a car now and then. Speaking for myself, five or six hours' continuous driving is quite
886
a stint. Because of this and because there is a real risk, indeed almost a certainty, that the excessive fatigue caused by these long hours can lead to accidents, the Government have decided to reduce the limit to something more akin to traffic in the 1960s rather than in the 1930s. I am sorry that there are not more noble Lords present, since I was going to appeal to all noble Lords to approve this decision and to bear it in mind when we consider Amendments later on. We think that the redactions in hours, which are to be made in two stages, will give the industry reasonable time to adjust to them.
The noble Duke asked about research on which a decision is based. Would he like us to be so far behind Europe? Is he aware of the comparisons between our present proposals and the hours being worked in Europe? In this country to-day the continuous duty without a break is 5½ hours driving maximum. Under the Bill we propose that it should still be 5½ hours. Under the draft E.E.C. regulations the European limit will be 4½ hours. To-day our bus and coach drivers can legally drive for 11 hours. Under the Bill in the first stage we propose that they should drive for 10 hours; and the second stage for 9 hours at the wheel. In Europe it is now 9 hours under the E.E.C. regulations. So that it will take us quite a time before we get to the level which is thought proper in Europe.
For the first stage of our proposals the target date is the spring of next year, when we propose to reduce the 14 hour total day to a l2½ hour day. During those 12½ hours a driver must have 1½ hours off, leaving 11 hours available for his employer. He can spend up to 10 of those 11 hours actually at the wheel. During each week he will be limited to a total of 60 hours on duty; and if he is a lorry or coach driver he must have at least one day off a week, or if he is a bus driver one day off a fortnight. At the second stage—I regret to say there is no target date for this—the 12½ hours day for lorry and coach drivers would be reduced to 11 hours. Any time off will have to count against the 11 hours. At the same time the 10 hour limit will be reduced to 9. Bus drivers will be required to have one day off a week, the same as lorry drivers, instead of one day

887
off every 2 weeks. Imagine driving a bus for 13 days out of the 14, and doing it every week—and doing it because you must have the money.
It is one of the scandals of driving, whether it be commercial vehicles or others, that the wages are so disgracefully low that men have to work these inordinate hours to get a living so as to keep their families. This is one of the basic rottenesses of this industry. The noble Duke said that people in rural areas have to pay more for their coach trips because coaches are so much cheaper than rail. Most people in this country would rather pay a higher, reasonable fare rather than depend for low fares on sweated, exploited labour. And, not to put too fine a point on it, that is what it is.
Finally, as soon as the devices become available in quantity we intend to require employers—this is another safety measure—to fit automatic time recorders, both as an aid to enforcement and to help firms to achieve better operational control over the use of their vehicles. There is nothing wildly revolutionary about a proposition like this: that in some years' time, with luck and perseverance, we might get down or up to the level of the European countries. I do not think this is a revolutionary objective. I could wish that it were more radical. But we recognise that it is going to lead to some pretty radical changes on both sides of industry. If it is not to result in extra costs in transport, or in low wages for drivers, there will have to be changes involving new running schedules for vehicles and new attitudes on the part of employers and drivers towards working practices generally. These things take time to arrange, and that is why we are having two stages instead of one.
Of course, there will be some hard cases. It will be more difficult for some firms and industries to adjust than for others. But, as my right honourable friend said recently in another place, all change produces problems, and this is one of the great difficulties faced by the whole nation. We are as a nation unanimously in favour of change, provided that we can get all written guarantees that it will not affect us personally, but
888
will affect some other chap. We are in favour of reducing drivers' hours, provided that it does not cause us difficulties. And, looking through the Amendments, I feel that that gentle criticism could be applied to some of your Lordships. Even so, the Bill provides, in subsections (10) and (12) of Clause 95, very wide powers for the Minister to grant exemptions by regulation in those few cases where it would be impossible, or unreasonable, for the standard rules to be applied in full. I warmly and sincerely commend Part VI of the Bill to your Lordships, on the grounds that it is a modest attempt to bring drivers' hours roughly into line with the strains and stresses put on them by increasing traffic, while retaining sufficient flexibility to provide more exceptions to the rule where genuinely strong cases can be made out for them.
In moving his Amendment, the noble Duke made an interesting and quite important speech, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Mitchison, that he did himself less than justice, because if some of the things he said are read by people who do not know him well, they could be very much misunderstood; and I regret some of them. The noble Duke asked, first of all, whether subsection (1) is really necessary. Of course he is quite right; subsection (1) merely sets out the objectives of Part VI, and does not impose any requirements. So, strictly speaking, the subsection is not essential. But it is intended, as he thought, to provide a helpful introduction to Part VI, and I thought he might feel that the precedent of Section 73 of the 1960 Act had been hallowed and that this was the one part of the Bill which he would not want to take out. But, certainly, deletion of the subsection would not improve the Bill.
Then he asked whether limitations on drivers' hours had been based on scientific study or Socialist dogma. If it is Socialist dogma to want men to get a fair week's pay for a reasonable number of hours worked; if it is Socialist dogma for us to want vehicles to be safe, and safely driven, and to want the risk of accidents not increased by overwork, then you can call that Socialist dogma. I call it the kind of dogma that any noble Lord in this House ought to support.
The rules are based on scientific study and on the fact that fatigue slows the

889
reaction time. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has experience of this. It is not only a question of surviving. There are people with 100 mg. of alcohol in every 100 ml. of blood who can still drive—or think they can—without accident. But, of course, it is quick reaction to sudden happenings that prevents accidents, and when people are over-fatigued they do not react so quickly. Even professional drivers get tired, and accident figures are sometimes misleading because it is difficult to assess fatigue at the time of an accident.
I would rather skip over the point about the considerable savings. It was really not worthy of the noble Duke to mention this, considering the way in which those considerable savings become possible. I hope that when these regulations are brought in, and industry adjusts itself, the new methods will provide a more efficient service, and that costs per mile will not thereby be increased. But whether or not this subsection stays in the Bill, I hope that, in the main, your Lordships will support the principles of Part VI of the Bill.
7.26 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord for his admirable and comprehensive reply to the debate which my noble friend the Duke of Atholl started with his excellent speech. Whether or not we agree with everything that my noble friend said, if it provoked the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, into making such a comprehensive speech we are all grateful to him for that. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, knows, it is the Government's obligation to make out their case. The Minister in another place has said that the extra cost of these regulations will be £25 million a year, which is quite a "hefty" sum unless it can be matched by comparable savings on new productivity agreements. So it is perfectly fair to my noble friend the Duke of Atholl to put these issues to the noble Lord, and, certainly for my part, I found the noble Lord's answer extremely interesting.
There are one or two points which I should like to raise with the noble Lord before we leave this question, and I am sure he will not take them amiss. On a small point of fact, could he tell us whether both the E.E.C. regulations to
890
which he referred are draft regulations at present, and, if they are draft regulations, can he tell us when it is expected they will be implemented? I accept the general proposition—and I belies it is so—that the hours of work permitted by law here for driving are in excess of those in Europe or America or elsewhere. In addition, I do not disagree that in this respect the law is forty years old, that conditions on the roads have very radically changed in that time, and that the intensity of traffic has changed completely. I accept the noble Lord's general proposition that there is a fatigue clement here, and also the Minister's statement in another place, which the noble Lord repeated here, that written evidence has shown that there is a direct relationship between driver fatigue and slowness of reaction.
On the other hand, my noble friends the Duke of Atholl and Lord Teviot both made a very good point in saying that the professional driver is by far the safest driver—there is no question about that—and that it is not usually he who causes the accidents, but the private driver. That is a fair point and I think my noble friends were quite right to make it. When the noble Lord weighed in, rather heavily I thought, about what he regarded as the rottenness of the industry, with its sweated labour, I thought he was a little overdoing it. After all, some of the financial embarrassments of the industry are due to the noble Lord and his friends opposite. They whacked on S.E.T.; they took away the investment allowances of 30 per cent.; they increased the fuel taxes. They really have not given these bus companies a very good hand.
But, leaving aside these somewhat political overtones and dealing with the strictly practical, I am sure the noble Lord is well aware of the practical problems which confront the municipal bus companies in maintaining their services; the acute shortage of drivers in most of these municipalities. The figures have been given—they were given by the Associated Chambers of Commerce—that the existing position is a shortage of 10 to 15 per cent. and that the effect of the Bill would raise the shortage to 15 to 20 per cent.; and we have it from Birmingham that, in the light of the effects of the Bill, they would have a shortage of something between 200 and 300 drivers. These

891
are serious figures. Whilst of course we are concerned for the wellbeing and the health of the individual drivers and the safety of their passengers—and, indeed, the safety of the drivers—we are also concerned to keep these essential public transport services going, and we must have regard to the effects of what we are doing. I agree with the noble Lord: this general debate, this almost "Part VI Stand Part" debate, as it were, is valuable in enabling us to take a general view of all these effects.
I suspect that these shortages can to some extent be overcome by new productivity agreements. Single-manning, perhaps, will help us, especially if conductors can be trained to be drivers—although I do not know to what extent that can be done. In another place the Minister postulated the kind of result that is wanted, and I do not disagree with him. He wants to see as the ultimate outcome one in which the hours are shortened, the earnings of the drivers are maintained, the costs are not increased and the efficiency of the services is maintained as well. That is certainly what I want, as well—I believe it is what we all want—but it is going to be quite a productivity agreement which achieves all that!
In the traverse of this whole subject, my feeling is: Yes, we are right to move, but we must look carefully at the practical effects. We must look carefully at the effects on the marginal and special cases to make sure that the measure we are following is a practical one. But, of course, we must always have in mind the safety factors, which are the concern of all of us. Having said that, I should like again to thank my noble friend the Duke of Atholl for starting this debate, and to say that I think it has served a very useful purpose.
LORD BURTON: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to "sweated and exploited labour", but I wonder whether this is in fact the view of the drivers in the road haulage industry, because it would appear that strikes over the matter of wages have taken place on the railways and not in the road haulage industry. The other point the noble Lord made was that there had been no change in forty years, apparently, in the number of hours worked. But surely there has been an im-
892
provement in the standard of vehicles, which must considerably have altered the fatigue rate in driving. Another point raised was on breathalysers. Their introduction has undoubtedly cut accidents, and presumably there will be no change in the law, or no material change, whatever Party is in power. But if it were found that the cutting of drivers' hours was not in fact cutting the accident rate, would Her Majesty's Government reinstate the position or would they leave the hours cut, as they are to be cut at the moment?
VISCOUNT SIMON: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, one question. I am in complete agreement with what he said in his very full speech. It seems to me that if these reduced hours of driving are introduced, as I believe they should be, then in the case of long-distance transport, both goods and passenger, it may well be necessary to carry a second driver who is able to take over. The question I wanted to ask, as the noble Lord was dealing with the general principles of Part VI, was whether the time spent by the second driver sitting in the coach or lorry, as the case may be, would count against his hours of work. If it did then there would be no purpose in having a second driver. The noble Lord nods to indicate that it would count. In that case, of course, it would be necessary to introduce a fairly elaborate system of staging, similar to the old stage-coach principle, where you change over at stated points and the first driver picks up another vehicle on another occasion.
LORD MITCHISON: Not "to introduce". It is done now.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: When the noble Lord replies to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, may I ask him whether he will deal with the possibility of the American system of sleeper berths as well? This Bill will alter the general structure of driving. Of course, sleeper berths are illegal at present in this country, but this is how the situation is dealt with both in Europe and in America. It would he interesting to hear the noble Lord on that point as well.
LORD BELSTEAD: I wonder whether I may make a couple of short points which I thought I might try to make on the Motion, That the clause stand part? I feel that possibly by the time we get

893
to that Question we shall not be wanting to do that, so may I put them to the noble Lord now? I myself welcome the reduction to ten hours which is in the Bill, because I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent that there is a fatigue factor. I think those were his words. But, following the thinking of the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, I wonder whether a case has been made out on good scientific evidence for the reduction to nine hours, which still remains in the Bill? As the Bill stands at the moment—and this is really the point which I would have sought to make on the Question whether the clause stand part—when the Minister wishes to implement his stage 2 he will have no option under Clause 95(12(a) but to reduce all the hours for everybody who drives the vehicles in Part VI to nine hours.
It may sound a little odd coming from this side of the Committee, but I feel very strongly that if the Minister would only take the power to reduce the stage 2 hours by regulations it could well be that at some future date this could be done in a very much more equitable manner. I am sure I should he completely out of order if I went on to talk about different industries, but I know the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will realise, looking at the Marshalled List, that we shall be talking about different industries and different circumstances. I wonder whether perhaps he might take the point, and might indeed look into it, as to whether it might not be an idea to change Clause 95(2)(a) somewhat, and whether the Minister might not substitute regulations for this.
May I briefly add two more things? My noble friend Lord Nugent asked the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, questions about the E.E.C. plans—were they draft plans, or were they not? We can read a certain amount of dialogue in the Standing Committee proceedings in another place, and also in column 1924 of the Report stage in another place. Particularly with reference to the Report stage, I believe I am right in saying that the reader is given the impression that the E.E.C. countries—and here I am speaking a little more strongly than my noble friend Lord Nugent—will possibly plan to have a 13-hour spreadover which is going to he longer than the one which is in the Bill at the moment and a great
894
deal longer than the proposed stage 2. It is true that the E.E.C. countries are proposing to have nine hours at the wheel, but with two days in the week with ten hours—and this, of course, leads straight to the point about flexibility which I think will be repeated again and again in the next hour or so. Also, of course, there is the provision in those countries for sleeper berths—a provision which we do not allow in this country.
I certainly do not want to inject a cheap point, but may I end by picking up the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about relief drivers? When we discuss the clauses in Part VI, let us not forget that the flat rate contribution of an employer for his driver has gone up since 1964 from 9s. 8d. a week to 41s. 6d.—and it is going higher very soon. When we talk about relief drivers we do not talk about paying a second man his wages; we talk about all the extra stamps involved. Without being impertinent, I shall make no apology for returning again, on future Amendments, to the vital question of productivity. I hope that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will include a word about it when he comes to reply.
LORD MITCHISON: Before the noble Lord sits down, since he is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, and, therefore, for the Tory Party, in view of one or two things that have been said in the course of the debate I wonder if he would answer one simple question. Does the Opposition or the Tory Party, whichever he likes to call it, stand in favour of the reduction of drivers' hours, or of keeping them the same, or of having no statutory limitation on them at all.
LORD BELSTEAD: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, I think I stated that in the very first words of my speech.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not hear. Perhaps he will tell me.
LORD BELSTEAD: I appreciate that the noble Lord with his experience is quite right to point out that although I am speaking from a different place I used the word "I" at that moment. I said that I welcomed the reduction to 10 hours but that I queried (and I

895
said that I followed the noble Duke in his thinking on this matter) the scientific evidence for the reduction to 9 hours, the power for which still remains in the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful for the questions addressed to me. I am sorry that I did not comment earlier on Lord Belstead's change of place. I can only say that I mentioned last week the view held by one of his noble friends that it would not be long before he moved forward. My forecast has not taken long to be fulfilled. With regard to the noble Lord's point about Clause 95(12)(a), the reduction to 9 hours at the second stage being brought about by regulations, I must tell him that when the 10 hours are reduced to 9 it will be for all vehicles. It makes no practical difference, therefore, whether this is done by order or by regulation. It will be for all. Later we shall be discussing a number of Amendments concerned with exceptions; and there are provisions in the Bill for exceptions. With regard to a number of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, may I say that the E.E.C. regulations are draft regulations. I thought I had said so; I knew they were and meant to say so. I must add that although I do not know when all the E.E.C. countries will ratify, these draft regulations are, in fact, based on the hours currently worked in this industry in a number of European countries. Therefore we are, as it were, comparing like with like.
A point was made with regard to the additional costs to which transport companies have been put by Government action. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned, for example, that flat rate contributions had gone up from 9s. 8d. to something over £2, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, reproachfully mentioned S.E.T. so far as the bus companies are concerned. But the bus companies get a full refund of S.E.T. It costs them nothing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will agree that their refund, paid three-monthly) should come off the 40s. that he mentioned as being paid out. The employers get a refund of 25s. a week in respect of each male employee. They will receive new bus grants under Clause 32 of this Bill. They receive sub-
896
stantial relief from fuel tax on the stage services: the sum of £17½ million is involved, including the extra amount under Clause 33 of the Bill.
With regard to the assessments of the difficulties of operators when these new hours come into operation, I appreciate that this is a matter for careful consideration. It was for this reason that we did not immediately say, in the first stage, that drivers must have one day off in seven. We left it for the time being at one day off in two weeks.
With regard to the question of the effects of a shortage of drivers, I can assure noble Lords (and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is aware of this) that our proposals have been made only after extensive consultations with operators' organisations, unions, and other interested bodies; and that what has been produced has been as a result of those discussions. So far in these discussions we have not yet taken account of improvements in productivity. We hope to get more productivity not only on the railways but also on the roads and in the buses. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked me whether the long hours would be restored if the accidents were not reduced. I cannot give an undertaking on that. I should have thought that, whatever Government were in power, it was highly improbable. I think there is general acceptance (and this was confirmed by Lord Nugent) that overlong hours are being worked in this industry.
My noble friend, Lord Simon, asked me about the second driver in the cab of a lorry. I nodded to him and indicated that that counts against the permitted hours. This happens now; although it does not happen now for buses. But it will apply to buses under the Bill. I am afraid that sleeper berths will not affect the situation. I hope I have answered all the questions. I think it has been an extremely useful debate and I am grateful to the noble Duke for instituting it in this way, because a general discussion of this kind is very helpful.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and to say I am entirely unrepentant about the way in which I introduced this discussion. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has not produced any

897
real scientific evidence to show that fatigue is contributory to accidents. I am quite convinced—but not for the reasons stated in this part of the Bill—that we need to reduce the very excessive hours that some drivers work. Experiments have been carried out on this; and, as I have said before, they are inconclusive. But there has been an experiment on the effect of 12 hours' continuous driving on the time taken to respond to a light signal. In the first three hours the average time was 6·2 seconds; in the second three hours it dropped to 5·2; in the third three hours the average time was 4·6 seconds, in the fourth three hours it increased marginally to 4·7 seconds. It was still nowhere near as bad as it was in the first three, or even the second three, hours.
A controlled experiment was carried out in America on the number of near misses that truck drivers had in a 9-hour drive covering 250 miles. The average number of near misses in the first hour was about eleven and it dropped to one in the ninth hour. There may have been other reasons for this—the density of traffic may have been different, and no doubt the roads were very different—but I think it all tends to show that it is not fatigue that we are trying to get rid of, but the excessive hours that some of these drivers work. I am quite convinced that there are very good social reasons for trying to get rid of those excessive hours, just as in one's own business one tries to cut down an enormous amount of overtime by such things as incentive schemes. I think it a very bad thing for people to work 60 hours a week and I am pleased to say that in many of the works with which I am connected, thanks to incentive schemes, we are able to produce just as much by working an average of about 48 hours a week as we did previously by working 60 hours a week, and, incidentally, the workers are equally well off.
I think it somewhat hypocritical to pretend that it is fatigue that causes accidents because of an excessive amount of driving. There are many good reasons for getting rid of these very long hours, but we ought not to think that in the case of professional drivers fatigue has a major effect on accidents, or that by bringing in Part VI of this Bill we shall
898
see a great reduction in the number of accidents.
Finally, may I say a word about breathalysers? I was never opposed to breathalysers, and I think that most noble Lords on this side of the Committee did not oppose them once the random element was removed. I am sure that most of my noble friends would agree that on this side of the Committee, once the idea of having random tests was dropped breathalysers, I do rot say were greeted with great enthusiasm, but at any rate were not very much opposed; and if they were opposed I am quite prepared to admit that we were wrong. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment. No. 231B:
Page 125, line 34, after ("tractors") insert ("except vehicles registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962 as agricultural tractors and machines").
The noble Earl said: One thing on which I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is that this is a complicated Part of the Bill. I have no doubt that is due to the hard bargaining which lay behind it. The complicated nature of these provisions has caused a great deal of anxiety in the agriculture industry. We have just heard a very interesting discussion on subsection (1), which indicates that Part VI is intended to apply to "persons engaged in the carriage of passengers or goods by road." What that has to do with agricultural tractors and machinery, I do not know.
It seems to me that the whole of the agricultural aspect of this has been engrafted on to a Bill of an entirely different character. I believe that it should have been dealt with on entirely different lines. It does not need any detailed explanation to see why agriculture has to be dealt with differently. Everyone knows that on occasions agricultural work waits for nobody. When the weather is right it has to be clone, and long hours have to worked. This makes for a clear-cut definition of the vehicles which should be excluded, and which are already perfectly clearly defined in the Excise regulations. I suggest that this is the simplest way in which agriculture might be dealt with under Part VI.
There are a number of other Amendments, and I do not propose to expand on this one, but it seems to be the clearest-cut definition of the sort of thing which could be done. The noble Lord may refer to Section 95(9) which says that no account shall be taken of any time spent driving vehicles in the course of agricultural operations. I do not think that excludes the whole range of written records and inspections which is dealt with later in this part of the Bill. I suggest, therefore, that the simplest way would be to take out those vehicles which are perfectly clearly defined and which I have referred to in this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with this Amendment and Amendments Nos. 231B, 231C, 241C and 241D, all in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and say a word about each of them. The first would exempt agricultural tractors and machines, and therefore their drivers, from Part VI of the Bill. Amendment No. 231C would exclude farmers' goods vehicles from the "motor vehicles" stated in Clause 94(2)(b)(ii) as being subject to Part VI of the Bill. Amendment 241C would exempt farmers' goods vehicles not exceeding two tons unladen weight from the need to have tachographs fitted to them. Amendment No. 241D would similarly exempt agricultural tractors and machines from the need to have tachographs.
May I first deal with the Amendments relating to agricultural tractors and machines? It is true that these vehicles are likely to be driven on a road only for limited periods, but it is quite likely that in the course of a 24-hour period they will be so driven for more than four hours and it would not be right, where that had happened, to exclude the provisions of Clause 95, relating to restrictions on drivers' hours, merely because of the agricultural character of these vehicles, thus depriving farm workers of the protection afforded to others.
Until quite recently I should have declared an interest when talking about tractor drivers and farm workers, as until a year or two ago I was one of the spokesmen for the N.U.A.W.; but this
900
no longer applies. But while I no longer have to declare an interest I feel just as strongly on this matter, because it seems to me that here there is a suggestion of inferior treatment for tractor drivers and farmworkers, compared with people driving other vehicles. Moreover, it must be remembered that persons employed to drive these vehicles may also be required to drive other vehicles of the kind to which Part VI applies for more than four hours in any working day. Where this happens, account must be taken of the time spent by them in driving these agricultural machines, even off the road, for the purposes of reckoning the length of the working day and the number of hours for which the person concerned has been on duty in the course of a working week.
I must point out, too, that if situations of an exceptional kind should arise where there is a need to relax the requirements of Clause 95 as they effect these vehicles the Minister could exercise a power to create exemptions by regulation under subsection (10). This power is inserted to meet special needs arising at harvest time. There would also remain available the Minister's power to modify or change the provisions of Clause 95 by an order made under the powers given by subsection (12)(c) should this be needed to meet any particular difficulties shown by experience to have been created for agriculture by the provisions of Clause 95 as they stand.
So far as concerns the application to agricultural tractors and machines of the provisions of Clause 96—the installation of tachographs—it is certainly not the intention that all these vehicles shall be equipped with tachographs, and this was made clear in the Commons Committee. I repeat the undertaking which was then given. They will be considered for exemption from the provisions of Clause 96 by regulations made under subsection (2)(b) of the clause, so far as may be necessary for this purpose, and accordingly it is unnecessary and unacceptable for a blanket exemption to be written into the Bill.
Now a word on the amendments relating to farmers' goods vehicles. The Amendments concerning these vehicles cannot be accepted, because they can be used on public roads without restriction as to mileage, provided that they carry

901
the farmer's own goods or equipment. I assure the noble Earl that Amendment No. 231C is unnecessary, since all goods vehicles, including those registered as farmers' goods 'vehicles, are subject to the provisions of Part VI. It may, however, have been intended that the insertion proposed by the Amendment should be made within the parentheses in Clause 94(2)(b)(ii), in line 40, to exclude farmers' goods vehicles from the category of:
"motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry goods other than the effects of passengers".
If there are cases for special exemptions from the hours limits to meet a special need, such as at harvest times, the exemption powers in Clause 95(10), as amended by Government Amendment No. 239, are sufficient to deal with them. It would be an unjustifiable safety risk to allow farmers to use their goods vehicles on the roads without any limits on the hours they could drive. For the same reason, their vehicles should be fitted with tachographs.
Although exemption from the record-keeping provisions of Clause 97 is not suggested by the Amendments, I should mention that drivers of farmers' goods vehicles will be required by regulations made under Clause 97 to keep written records. It is an undesirable gap in the present system of control over drivers' hours that drivers of farmers' goods vehicles do not have to keep written records. This is because these vehicles are exempt from carrier's licensing and this carries with it exemption from the keeping of written records. Farmers' goods vehicles will in future be subject to operator's licensing and there is, in any event, no similar link under the new system between operators' licences and written records.
In moving his Amendment, the noble Earl referred to the complications of the Bill. I am afraid that the brief I had for my reply has also been slightly complicated, but I hope that I have been able to make the position clear. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Earl will not find it necessary to press his Amendment.
8.4 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for his reply to my noble friend Lord Selkirk. Most of his reply seemed
902
to me to meet a large part of the case, but I feel a little anxious about the uncertainties inherent in the noble Lord's reply that the Minister's power of making exemptions will meet cases where there is a special need. As the noble Lord knows, there is a great deal of anxiety in the farming world as to how these regulations will affect farming operations.
While I would accept that the general exemption in Clause 95(9) will cover most farming operations, and that the four hours a week will be enough to cover most cases where agricultural vehicles move on the road from field to field, or possibly from farm to farm, there will be some circumstance where they are not. The noble Lord referred to harvest time, and I have in mind the position of contractors of combine harvesters. When combines are engaged in work at several small farms, they will move on the road several times a week. They travel pretty slowly, at five or six miles an hour, so that four hours would be taken up very quickly in moving from one farm to another. That is a case which strikes one immediately and which will have to be covered. No doubt there are others. I should have thought that it would be desirable that the Minister should say now that he is going to make an exemption for such cases so that the farming world have the certainty that this will be done.
I do not think that my noble friend Lord Selkirk would expect all this to he written into the Bill and although it may be impossible for the noble Lord to give definite assurances at this stage, perhaps they could be given at Report stage. This would help to reassure the many people who are anxious about this position. With regard to the "F" licences for farmers' goods vehicles, that is in the same position as the "C" licence vehicle of industrialists, and I do not think that that is a point we should press.
LORD BALERNO: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, would help me to resolve the confusion in my mind. If agricultural tractors and vehicles are to be exempted by subsequent regulations, I cannot understand why we should not insert this in the Bill. That would simplify the matter for farmers. Farmers are being so confused by so many regulations at this time that

903
any new regulations are bound to fog many of them. Not every farmer is as intelligent as the noble Lords who sit on the Government Front Bench, and it is difficult for them to understand these complicated regulations. If they were clearly stated in the Bill, they could be much more readily understood and interpreted by the agricultural Press, and I beseech the noble Lord to consider putting this exemption into the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk has suggested.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, has taken into consideration the fact that the driver of a combine or tractor in a field is not doing a nerve-racking job. It is most unlikely that he is going to meet another mechanically propelled vehicle. He has to drive a straight furrow, and there is nothing very nerve-racking about that. He does not tire so quickly as the driver of an internal combustion engine on the road. Therefore, when he comes off the field on to the roads he is not in that same state of exhaustion as a man who has been driving an internal combustion engine on the road all day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: When I moved this Amendment I said that the agricultural industry was totally unsuited to work under the regulations of this Bill. What the noble Lord has said is that the only possible way we shall work it is by making a whole list of regulations exempting this, that and the other. This is making a farce of legislation. Here we are asked to pass a law, and the Government sit back and vary the law at their convenience. That is a ridiculous way in which to frame legislation. As my noble friend Lord Balerno has said, who is going to understand it? It is difficult enough to understand the Bill as it is written. By the time the noble Lord has "cut loose" with his regulations, practically no one will understand it.
Surely it is in the interests of the public that they should have legislation which they can understand. It is not that people want to break the law, but that they want to understand it. I do not propose to press the Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. If he can give us any further information, I hope he will do so. It
904
is in the interests of the farming community that they should understand what they are being asked to do, and I am sure they would be willing to co-operate if it were made clear. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.13 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 125, line 41, at end insert ("but not to vehicles the unladen weight of which does not exceed 30 cwt.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 232, standing in the names of my noble friends, Lord St. Oswald and Lord Windlesham, and myself. The effect of this Amendment would be to exempt from the effects of Clauses 94 and 95 vehicles the unladen weight of which does not exceed 30 cwt. This is an attempt to deal with such problems as the dual-purpose vehicle that we discussed earlier on an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, and, indeed, the small van which carries goods and is used for all kinds of purposes.
As the Bill stands, if such a vehicle does more than four hours carrying goods on the road during the week the full effect of the drivers' hours regulations will apply, as in this clause and the next, for every movement of the vehicle during that week. Such dual-purpose vehicles, as we all know, exist literally in their tens of thousands, and possibly in hundreds of thousands. They exist in the world of agriculture and forestry, about which we have just been talking, throughout industry and all over the place. It really would be seriously inhibiting to apply the full rigour of this law in such cases.
As my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said so cogently, most of the drivers and owners of these vehicles will find it difficult to understand the regulations, anyhow and the Bill recognises that we are getting into the de minimis class, because it does not require them to fit tachographs in order to keep an accurate record of what they do. Let us at least have no doubt among ourselves as we discuss the Bill that unless tachographs are fitted the enforcement of these regulations will be quite impossible. As came out to-day in the debate that we had a short time ago with the noble

905
Lord, Lord Stonham, the worst cases of driving excessive hours are grotesquely in excess of the existing regulations, mainly arising out of the great difficulty of enforcement. So I make the point that the 30 cwt. vehicle is not to have a tachograph, and there will always be a problem of enforcement there.
But taking the farming world, with which many noble Lords are familiar—as indeed I am myself—many farmers have these small 39 cwt. or dual-purpose vehicles which are used for their own private transport, as well as, to a limited extent, carrying goods in the back when required to do so. If they carry goods for more than four hours a week on the road, then they immediately come within the whole range of the Bill. It may be the farmer, or it may even be his wife, who will then be subjected to the full control of the regulations on hours. So the implications are quite considerable.
I should like also to make the case, with which I know the noble Lord will be familiar, of the agricultural fitter. I have had this case submitted to me, but the noble Lord will know from his own experience that this is quite typical. The agricultural fitter nowadays invariably uses a 30 cwt. van, in which he carries a certain amount of goods, so that he will immediately come within the terms of the Bill. This man is used during harvest time—haymaking, potato harvesting and corn harvesting—and is a vital figure in the farming world. The average farmer nowadays makes an arrangement with his agricultural machinery merchant, and the understanding is that if there is a breakdown the agricultural fitter will come out within a few hours and remain until he has got the machine going again. He carries with him in his van his spares and breakdown kit, and he can repair pretty well anything. In a difficult season, this is the way the harvest is obtained, whether it is potatoes, corn or hay. The more breakdowns you have, the more you depend on this admirable man coming along and working until he has the machine going again.
Machines are very complicated nowadays, and only on the biggest farms can they carry a repair depot and their own mechanics who can do repairs: and it would be a most exceptional farmer who could mend a combine harvester or, indeed, a potato-picker. I can remember
906
in pre-war days mending a binder, or even mending the knotter on it; but nowadays one would be utterly defeated. The agricultural fitter is a key figure, but he would qualify so that the Bill would bite on his circumstances. He does not cover a tremendous mileage, but he drives much more than four hours a week, because he drives out from the machinery depot at which he works to different farms and attends to their requirements.
But his hours of work during harvest time would be 70 or 80 hours a week. If, having once driven four hours during a week with his 30 cwt. van, he were to be limited subsequently to 60 hours a week, as the Bill now says, it would mean that some 10 to 20 hours of this vital work that he carries out would be chopped off. This would be—it is no exaggeration to say it—seriously inhibiting and would reduce the farming world's ability to get the harvest in, especially in a bad year. To some extent, similar observations apply to agricultural vets, who also use these dual-purpose vehicles; and similar problems arise in the building world, in the construction world, and no doubt problems at seasonal times, like Christmas, with the mail, deliveries and so on.
I believe that this degree of flexibility with these small vehicles is something that this Bill badly needs. Again, I stress that a large part of this has already been conceded in the exemption of this class of vehicle from the requirement to fit a tachograph. It will always be exceedingly difficult to know just what these 30 cwt. vehicles are doing. I believe there is a good practical case for saying that the Bill will be stronger if this exemption is made. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord fairly explained the effect of his Amendment: that it will exempt front these regulations vehicles under 30 cwt. I am very sorry, as this is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of replying to the points made by the noble Lord, that I cannot give way to him. As he knows, I should very much like to do it, but I fear, certainly on the basis of the case he has made out, that I cannot. As I understand what the noble Lord said, it was because certain exemptions had been made in this category of vehicles that we should make even further exemptions. I should have thought that the

907
noble Lord, with his very fair mind, would use the examples of these exemptions to show that we were in fact looking at this problem with a very flexible mind. But, instead of that, he seemed to use them as an argument for going even further. It is perfectly true that we are not being unreasonable; we are not requiring these vans to fit tachographs. It is perfectly true that Clause 96(2) provides for exemption of written records in certain cases. But to go further than that I think would be unreasonable, and the Amendment, I have to tell the noble Lord, is unacceptable on these same grounds of safety.
I cannot understand what the noble Lord was saying about the man who does not drive for more than four hours a week. The noble Lord kept repeating, "four hours a week". Was he intending to do this? He said that if a man was driving for more than four hours a week he would be caught by the rules. That, as I understand it, is not so. Any driver may drive for up to four hours each day and every day.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: A day?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, four hours a day, and he would not be caught. In that case I feel that possibly the noble Lord has misunderstood the regulation and will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: I do not know whether I can quite understand the position from the noble Lord's reply. He is pointing to the exemptions in Clause 96, which talks about the installation and operation of recording equipment. Surely that is a good long way ahead. We have not yet got down to that question at all. Meanwhile, we must consider the question of keeping records. I believe I am correct in saying this. It seems to me, unless I am wrong, that it goes far beyond the question of agricultural service engineers, and so on. Surely, this provision applies to every milk van and every baker's van in the country. If they have to keep to these hours and maintain these records, it will at times be extremely difficult for them to carry out their duties. Sometimes our
908
baker comes at peculiar hours. He has been delayed; something has gone wrong with the round. Presumably when this Bill comes into effect he will have to abandon his round at a certain stage and say, "I have driven the regulation number of hours", and then go home. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Lord will correct me. The same applies to milkmen, and the same applies to every person who runs a small van in this country.
8.24 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: I heard a short time ago that the Tory Party, which presumably includes some of the noble Lords opposite, was in favour of a reduction to nine hours, and was only doubtful whether the evidence supported a further reduction. I believe them to have accepted that. Therefore, I regard the Opposition's criticisms as not in any way impugning their general recognition that there ought to be limited hours, and more limited hours than there are at present. Without going into questions of evidence, common sense or anything of that kind, I should have thought that they were right to accept that. I would respectfully say that I agree with their acceptance, except that I think it does not go quite far enough. But what we are now discussing is exceptions from a general principle which they apparently accept.
What seems to me to lie at the bottom of this discussion is whether Parliament as a body is the right place to make exceptions in a matter of this sort, or whether there ought not to be, as in fact there is in the Bill, a very wide power for the Minister of granting exceptions, including, for instance, exemptions to meet any special need. I do not quite agree with some of the things that have been said. During quite along period as a Member of another place I knew of only one constituency case of a man being killed in agriculture. He was killed because he did not know how to drive a tractor properly and had it on a very dangerous place. I should have thought that that one incident, as it were, served as an example of the difficulty of trying to cover every kind of case by anything other than ministerial regulations and Orders, which can after all be changed from time to time.

909
Surely, what we are dealing with in transport, any kind of transport, is something which inevitably changes rather rapidly. One has only to look back quite a short time to find not only that the transport environment is now rather different, as one of my noble friends said, but also that the means of transport are very different. It seems to me that if we try to make the Legislature decide on particular exceptions we shall really end by pleasing no one but a number of road hauliers who, for quite different reasons, cordially dislike the Bill. I agree that they do not come in directly at this place, but that is the kind of situation we get. We get particular interests saying, "We ought to be exempted".
I think that in the field of transport the right person to deal with exceptions is the Minister, and if I am told that that is bureaucracy I would reply that I think it is necessary bureaucracy. I had for a long time to look at all the ministerial Orders that were made, and in fact I think I am right in saying that the Ministry of Transport makes more Orders than any other Department because it has to deal with a lot of matters where there is constant change, not only in types of vehicle but in things like road widths, lighting and a whole variety of matters. I should have thought that exemption in this kind of case was just in point; it was something that had to be dealt with in that way; and that if in fact Parliament tries to make the necessary exemptions in a case of this kind it can do so only in the very broadest terms, as it does in this Bill, and must leave particular cases to the Minister.
There is here, for instance, the exemption in favour of agriculture. Then we are asked, "What about the vet?" and, "What about the agricultural fitter?" I think that if any of us sat down and thought about it we could think up quite a number of other cases, too, which may after consideration—may I put it that way?—be possible exceptions. But I think one ought to be very slow indeed to assume that hours of work which apply in the interests of the safety of the driver himself—to drivers at large—and the safety of the public should not apply to a particular class of drivers. I think that the case for an exception ought to be either self-evident or at any rate proved
910
to the hilt. I rather doubt whether it is right to try to do this.
I am allowed to criticise the Bill—noble Lords in front of me cannot very well do that—and I think that some of these Bills go rather too far in trying to make particular exceptions. In quite other fields I remember cases where Parliament tried to do this sort of thing and really over-reached itself, and just provided for, say, half the appropriate cases and failed to provide for the others. So I think you must leave to the Minister the wide power of exemption which he has. It is not in the subsection to which my noble friend referred but in an earlier one. I am sure my noble friend will deal with that.
LORD BALERNO: I think if at the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is about the most disingenuous I ever heard in my life; to say that you cannot make a clear-cut distinction between the agricultural industry and the rest is arrant nonsense, with all respect to the noble Lord.
LORD MITCHISON: I did not say it and I did not mean it. I quoted agriculture as a case where I thought tae Bill had rightly done it. Now there is an attempt to bring in foresty as another exemption, and an attempt to bring in vehicles under 30 cwt. All I say is that you must have the case either self-evident or abundantly proved. I did not say and I do not mean that there ought not to be an exemption in favour of agriculture. There is one, and I do not disagree.
LORD BALERNO: I think there is a perfectly clear-cut difference to be made between agriculture and other industries, even the other country industries. One might make an exemption in the ease of forestry and link it with agriculture. That would be perfectly sensible. They are industries which derive from the land and the cultivation of the land and there is no major difference between agriculture and forestry in that respect. I support what my noble friend Lord Nugent has said about the agricultural fitter. I think this is most important. The agricultural fitter has his van, 30 cwt. or it may he more or less, and that van is fitted to meet any possible contingency that he is called upon to meet on a farm. Be does not know how long it is going to take. That van may have equipment which

911
will allow him to do all sorts of tasks, including welding. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, it is beyond the capacity of the ordinary farmer now to deal with some of the emergency breakdowns that take place in a complicated piece of machinery like a combine harvester.
I support also what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said about the milk van, although that is directly derived from the agricultural industry and could be included in it. I do not want to weaken my case for agriculture, but I should like to inform the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that one of the virtues of living in the country in the United Kingdom is that you do get service by the various travelling tradesmen with their vans, and that is a very important thing. You do not find this in the United States of America or in Canada. I question where else in the world you get such good service from travelling tradesmen as you do in the United Kingdom. My American and other friends from overseas visiting this country are amazed at this service by vans delivering and selling locally to isolated communities in the country and the amount of time that is saved for the housewife by being able to purchase at the door and not having to go into the neighbouring small town for her supplies. I support to the utmost the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Nugent.
LORD MITCHISON: May I thank the noble Lord for having given me time to look up the subsection I had forgotten. It is subsection (10) of Clause 95.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether I might help the Committee and we might reach a conclusion just a little earlier. The subsection to which I was referring was subsection (7). A good deal of the misconception which has arisen is based on the statement or the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that if a driver drives more than four hours in any one week he is caught under all these various occupations. The fact is that he can drive for four hours in any one day and the exemption is provided for in subsection (7) of Clause 95. I should have thought that that would cover the case of the agricultural fitter. He would come along
912
to the farm, driving less than four hours, probably spend all day working on some very complicated job, and he would not come into this provision at all. On that understanding, I wonder whether some of the fears of the noble Lord have not been met.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I put the record straight? I must apologise to noble Lords that I made a mistake; I should have said four hours a day, not four hours a week. But the case is there just the same. Naturally, four hours a week would make it fantastically worse, but four hours a day still leaves the problem.
LORD HAWKE: May I put this question? Take the case of the baker or the milkman. His round may embrace a number of calls. Must he keep some sort of record to show that in between his stops he was in charge of a moving vehicle for less than four hours? How on earth does the man with a delivery van prove whether he drives less than four hours when he has an eight-hour-day?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, without feeling in any way inclined to support this Amendment. We on these Benches sympathise with the agricultural fitter or the man with the milk van or whatever it may be, but this is a much wider Amendment than that—much wider than the countryside or the agriculture industry. It is to cover vehicles of an unladen weight which does not exceed 30 cwt. I think that is far too wide. Therefore I am rather reluctantly drawn to the conclusion that the right way of dealing with this matter is in regulations made by the Minister, and very considerable allowance is made for regulation both of particular cases and particular classes. Surely that is the right way to do it.
There is no way of producing an Amendment—at any rate, the Conservatives have not yet produced an Amendment—which will exempt these useful, important agricultural vehicles, some of which probably should be exempted from the requirements of this clause, without exempting a wide class of vehicles which almost certainly should not be exempted. I hope that we may have some assurance

913
from the Minister that considerable attention will be paid to giving a wide exemption to vehicles in the countryside.
LORD BELSTEAD: May I briefly make a point or two in support of my noble friend Lord Nugent? It seemed that the advantage of this Amendment was that, following Lord Mitchison's point, it was on a broad front; it falls into line with the Government's own generous exemptions. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, says that the Minister must make exemptions by regulations. I do not think the Minister is going to make exemptions very readily unless representations are made to him, and this can best be done by both Houses of Parliament.
There are, I think, three fair points which can be made in support of this Amendment. The first is the point made by my noble friend Lord Nugent—it now seems a long time ago—no tachographs; how do you then enforce? It is a generous Government exemption, but it provides a problem. Secondly, I think it is fair to say that Part VI is aimed at the drivers of larger passenger vehicles and of vehicles carrying goods. Private cars, however, are specifically exempted. Many vehicles included in this Amendment are used for social as well as for business purposes, and on a weight basis this seems to be an important point; they are equivalent to private cars.
I take the Minister's words with a slight pinch of salt, because I do not think they completely prove the case. On Report, in col. 1901 Mr. Marsh said:
"I do not think that anyone who has travelled in a 16-ton lorry can be unconscious of the fact that it is a very different proposition from driving a comfortable, smooth, relatively small car. It is hard work. I sat next to a man who I had admired intensely, who was manipulating no fewer than ten gears. There was a great deal of vibration and discomfort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 29/5/68.]
Thirdly, there is Lord Beswick's point that the acceptance of this Amendment would mean the acceptance of more and more exemptions. Surely, the strength of this Amendment is that if you bring drivers' hours into line with quality licensing you do rot open the door, in all fairness, to a great many other interests who clamour for exemption, because the Government can, in all
914
reason, say: "No, we have simply brought this into line with quality Licensing" The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and indeed other noble Lords have made the point about vets and representatives, and let us not forget, representatives of vital nationalised boards, people like a gas representative who in the evening may have to answer an emergency. Clause 95(10) may well cover them; but we do not know this, and so noble Lords opposite must forgive us if we on this side of the Committee bring this kind of thing to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.
I would suggest that the case for vehicles of 30 cwt. and under is a serious point. They will carry no tachographs. Their inclusion will force their drivers sometimes to choose between breaking the law and failing to respond in an emergency. The anomalies of their inclusion will cause a considerable amount of resentment. The most important point of all, weight for weight, I think, is that they will not affect road safety if they are excluded, and without the Government flexibility in possibly accepting or, at any rate, giving us some form of assurance that they will look at this Amendment the law may simply be brought into disrepute.
8.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: It appears to me that this is an issue, or is in danger of becoming an issue, between town and country which I should feel to be a most regrettable thing indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who lives in Sussex, and I are rural Peers. We feel that, living in the country and being served by these small vehicles which play such an intensely important part in our life, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, is the normal and the natural thing, and we do not like being treated as an exception; and we are not happy that the Minister, who is more likely than not to be a townsman, would treat us fairly in the matter of granting exceptions. I am well aware that at this stage in the argument and with this actual Amendment before us, the Minister will be unable to make concessions. But if, considering the strength of the purely rural opposition to this clause, the Minister could undertake to give some consideration to our point of view, which has been so well expressed

915
on the Conservative Benches, I for one would be most grateful.
LORD ST. HELENS: I feel that the essence of the Government's case, with which basically we on this side of the Committee agree, is that these regulations are made in the interests of the safety of the public; and I feel that one should not get too led away by the arguments of service to the public: in other words, I believe that safety comes before service in the application of these regulations. But I thought that the case so cogently argued by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, was that in dealing with these smaller vehicles we are not dealing with vehicles which are on the road for prolonged periods of time; we are dealing with vehicles which are virtually maids of all service; and, as maids of all service, to serve the larger vehicles and elements of machinery and to cope with emergencies, these vehicles surely should have exemption at times of emergency. That, I am sure, is the case that we are putting forward from this side, and we feel it deserves serious consideration.
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry that some noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, seemed to think that we were making some unnecessary attack on the liberty of the drivers in the country. This is not so. We are not extending the restrictions at all, on the category of vehicles which I understand he had in mind. All goods vehicles to-day —and it has been so for some time; even the smaller ones—are bound by the rules. The reason why they are bound is not because there is any conflict between town and country; it is because I believe we all, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, said, have a common interest in ensuring maximum safety on the roads.
What Part VI is about is to be found in Clause 94, where it says:
"This Part of this Act shall have effect with a view to securing the observance of proper hours of work by persons engaged in the carriage of passengers or goods…"
No one is going to be restricted unduly. Driving a vehicle for ten hours a day is surely a reasonable time, and it is not being unduly restrictive to say that there are rules over driving for ten hours a
916
day. I should have thought that this was something which we could all accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, agreed that we were being flexible so far as the tachographs were concerned, so far as eliminating the necessity for keeping written records. Where flexibility is possible and can be written into the Bill, it is written into the Bill. But in certain other cases which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, had in mind, it would be quite impossible to write into the Bill descriptions to fit every case. There are a variety of cases which could properly be exempted, but a regulation tailored to meet such a case is much the better way of dealing with this than writing it into the Bill. The noble Lord asked me for certain assurances. I cannot give him an assurance that the licensing authorities are going to negative the whole purpose of this Part of the Bill. But I can give an assurance that in proper cases, where a case is made out, exemptions will be made by the licensing authorities. On that basis, I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for answering the points we have put to him. I think I should be right in saying that there is a good deal of uneasiness among noble Lords in the Committee and we do not feel entirely happy with the arrangements that the Bill gives in this respect. The Minister's power to make regulations for exemptions here leaves the position vague and uncertain.
The broad problem that we are talking about is, of course, that of mixed work. I apologise again for mis-stating it to start with. The four hours a day would cover quite a number of cases, but certainly not all. We have an Amendment down later and perhaps we can discuss this again. This problem of mixed work is a real one, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who seemed to doubt the independence of the view that we took, would recognise the intrinsic merits of this. I can assure him that our Amendments have not been solely inspired by road hauliers. If we put down all the suggested Amendments we have received, the Marshalled List would be about six times its present size. We have confined ourselves to what we regard as the major practical problems in the Bill,

917
and in this Part of the Bill, where we agree with the general intention, we are concerned simply to try to make it as sensible and workable as possible—as indeed we were with the earlier stages of the licensing Part.
There is no doubt that there is a problem here, and the Bill as drafted would put in great difficulty large numbers of people in the agricultural world. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that he accepted this but he did not think it ought to go any further. But the fact is that other people are affected. My noble friend Lord Hawke mentioned the baker. There are not many bakers about who still bake as well as deliver, but there are a few, and they would be caught by it. I have mentioned the agricultural fitter, the vet; and I have no doubt there are many others.
What we are saying is that there is a real problem here. These people will sometimes drive more than four hours a day, and they work long hours because they run their own businesses. Or perhaps they are farmers. Whatever they do, they will have to stop work, essential work, or they will break the law, and if they have not got tachographs on their machines they will probably get away with it. I do not think this is a good solution either way, and that is how I think we all feel. I am not going to suggest that we should divide the Committee on this point, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick will take this matter back again and discuss it with his advisers in the Ministry of Transport and with the Minister and have another look at this problem.
My noble friend Lord Belstead, in his very effective intervention, made the point that this particular factor has been conceded on operators' licences, and indeed on quantity licensing generally, for a variety of very good reasons and although it does not seem entirely logical to extend it to drivers' hours I believe that quite a number of the same reasons apply. I confess that I came to this opinion only quite slowly. At first, I was not entirely convinced, but I have now become convinced that there is a big range of practical problems here with which the Bill does not cope and which are not satisfactorily dealt with by making exemptions. In other words, there is a general
918
class here, and that is why we have proceeded in the way we have done.
I hope that the noble Lord will give us credit—I am sure he will—for not having argued particular cases or for particular industries. This was done in another place. We have tried to deal with the general principle, and that is the thought that has guided us here. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord will look at it again. Perhaps we can give some further thought to it before we reach the Report stage, and perhaps we can have discussion about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 94 sha stand part of the Bill?
EARL BATHURST: I am not at all happy with the assurance that the noble Lord gave us on the harvest trucks. I feel there could be a very real difficulty here, and I would ask him wt. ether, before Report stage, he would hive a look at this again and ask the Minister if he would give an assurance that he would consider harvest trucks for a suitable regulation. My noble friend Lord Selkirk withdrew his Amendment, but I feel there is a very real problem here for a farmer who has to haul grain during harvest time on the main roads, both for road trucks under ordinary licensing and under the Excise licensing for agricultural vehicles. I therefore ask the noble Lord if he will present that point to his Minister and see if he cannot get us a better assurance by Report stage. Otherwise, I think we must ask my noble friend if he would take further advice and consider putting down a further Amendment on that point.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Permitted driving time and periods of duty]:
8.56 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 232AA:
Page 126, line 15, leave out ("ten") and insert ("eleven").
The noble Lord said: The reasons for my putting down this Amendment are first, that I considered it unnecessary and

919
unjustified to alter the present system of drivers' working hours, and, secondly, that I am sure the drivers do not wish it. At the moment I appear to be horribly alone in this House with my views, but this does not deter me one bit in persisting with my argument. Whilst congratulating successive Governments in their efforts to make our roads safer with M.O.T. tests on vehicles, new tyres, and breathalysers, I do not deem it necessary to cut drivers' hours.
It has already been accepted that transport drivers are, on the whole, a responsible body of men—more so than the ordinary motorist. I also put in a point speaking earlier, about firms paying more attention to general medicals of their employees, though I did not receive an answer. I have also studied the figures issued by ROSPA and have not found any conclusive evidence of an increase in the amount of accidents caused by public service vehicles or heavy transport vehicles. In fact, they all seem to be having a nice decrease. The reason why drivers want to work longer hours is quite simply—and I am prepared to be "shot down" on this—that they need the money, as we all do. And what more honourable way to earn money than to work for it? The Government are crying out all the time for higher productivity, and here are a body of men whose desire it is to work, only to have their hours cut down. After all, there must be a demand for this work, because employers do not pay expensive rates of overtime if the work is not available. You do not find shirkers in the transport industry. The distance has always to be covered, and they cannot be classed in the same way as the factory worker who sneaks off for a crafty cigarette, or office workers for a "chinwag".
There are subsequent Amendments that a man may drive 11 hours a day if he is driving to the ends of our shores. I do not think this goes far enough. I think the 11 hours has to be accepted wholeheartedly or not at all, because if it were proved that it was unsafe to drive for that time, it would be as unsafe to drive to the Highlands of Scotland as it would be anywhere else. In the bus industry, which I know best, services cannot be maintained because of the lack of staff. If hours are to be cut, the men
920
will find they cannot earn the same amount of money and thus enjoy the same standard of living. They will go elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that the average basic wages in this industry were very bad, but I would say: put their wages right first, and then talk about reducing hours afterwards. I urge the Government very seriously against cutting drivers' hours, which would only add more pointless confusion and chaos. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: I do find it extraordinary that after the very helpful debate we had on Part VI noble Lords are still moving Amendments, and talking and trying to convince the public at large that they are determined that, wherever possible, by hook or by crook, they will force men to work what I regard as overlong hours, and unsafe hours.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot sat down, I heard some noble Lord say "Hear, hear!". Is it not about time that when we are considering an Amendment in Committee noble Lords should take the trouble to find out what it is about and what it does? This Amendment seeks to alter the figure of 10 hours to 11 hours. The noble Lord said that the Government were crying out for productivity, as if long hours were synonymous with increased production. I am perhaps one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who for forty years ran a manufacturing business with a number of factories, and I had to contend with the task of production and the problems of industrial relations. In my experience, which covers a large number of industries, there is an optimum number of hours above which productivity goes down not up. You do not produce more; you produce less. So do not let us believe that working more and more hours leads to more and more production.
I thought that we had agreed that there was going to be some sort of general progress in this Bill. At least the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, gave us that impression. But what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asks for in this Amendment, if it is agreed to, actually will result in some cases in the working of longer hours than are permitted at present, although everybody is agreed that they are dangerously overlong. If the noble Lord, Lord Teviot,

921
will look at subsection (2) of Clause 102 he will see that driving will mean being actually at the wheel. What he is asking for is 11 hours actually at the wheel. Under the 1960 Act driving is limited to 11 hours, but it includes the time spent by the driver on other work in connection with the vehicle or its loads. So the noble Lord, with all his experience, is asking his noble friends to agree to alter the law so that people should actually drive longer than they do at present. The noble Lord shakes his head. I am telling him the effects of his Amendment. That is why I plead with noble Lords to discover the effect of an Amendment before they move it and not say, "I did not mean that at all. That is not what I meant. I meant something else."
The 11-hour limit has been imposed on driving since 1930. I said earlier that we had not changed things for forty years. Well, that is 38 years, which is not far off. Now we are proposing to make a change. If we were to make this Amendment it would be a retrograde step and out of line with our aim of reducing hours in the interest of road safety. It would also be out of line with the ideas in the rest of Europe. In many countries of Europe they are operating a 9-hour driving day, and draft regulations are being put forward by the E.E.C. countries for approval. I hope that the Committee will feel that we ought not to spend any more time on this Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The noble Lore, with his customary dialectical skill, has answered my noble friend's Amendment very effectively; but at the same time he has put the rod across our backs because we supported our noble friend. But we all rather admire the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. He is probably the only professional driver who comes from the passenger vehicle world to take part in the debate this evening. His views are worth having, whatever they are and whether or not one agrees with them. In fact, I do not quite agree with them; I think that there is a case for reduction; but it is interesting to hear from a noble Lord who has been a professional driver. As he sees it, the need is not there and the drivers do not want it.
922
We also all admire the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with his passionate humanity, but I would make the point that, just as he himself finds that hard work is something he likes doing—and he never spares himself, whether it be 8 hours or 18 hours a day, and that is true of other noble Lords in this House —a shortening of hours indefinitely is not necessarily something which makes humanity happier. There is a road safety element involved and we have that particularly in mind, but it is not a bad thing now and again to hear from people who say that they like to work these hours. So I think we were right to support my noble friend.
LORD ST. HELENS: During the long passage of this Bill this is the first time that. I have disagreed in any way with my noble friend Lord Nugent, who from our side has conducted proceedings on the Bill admirably. In this case I do not agree that the Minister has answered my noble friend Lord Teviot very effectively. The Minister's case was that on Lord Teviot's argument drivers would be forced to work longer hours. My noble friend suggested nothing of the sort. He suggested that drivers should be allowed to work longer hours. That is a very different matter.
The Minister brought up the question of productivity. Would he be kind enough to explain something to me? Throughout proceedings on the Bill in the Commons on this Part of the Bill there was great talk about reducing the hours of drivers but not reducing their pay because the Government would arrange for greater productivity. May I ask how one reduces the hours of a man driving a bus or any other public service vehicle, does not reduce his pay and yet arranges for greater productivity on his behalf? That has never been explained throughout the proceedings on the Bill. We should listen avidly if the Minister could take a few moments to explain to us how to increase the productivity of a driver whose driving hours have been reduced.
LORD SOMERS: Before we leave this Part of the Bill, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to say a word about the wisdom of charging the maximum from a time basis to a mileage basis. I am thinking of a journey

923
which normally takes perhaps 10¼ hours. Under the new regulations, that will either have to be speeded up or abandoned altogether. Is there a possibility that the less responsible firms will urge their drivers to go a little faster, in order that they can do it within the time permitted? If so, that will not make for safety on the roads. Of course, that would not apply to all vehicles, as steamrollers and similar vehicles would still have to be on a time basis. But not everybody has had the privilege of driving a steamroller.
LORD BURTON: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, keeps referring to the Continent. Am I not correct in thinking that on the Continent a sleeping compartment is allowed, and so long as one of the drivers is in the sleeping compartment the time does not count? Furthermore, what happens in the event of a breakdown, or if there is some blockage on the road which prevents a driver from completing his journey? Is he deprived of the chance of getting home that night? Or what is the position?
LORD TREFGARNE: I should like to take up the point of my noble friend Lord St. Helens on productivity. If we are reducing the number of hours that a London Transport driver works, how on earth are we going to increase his productivity, or even keep it at the same level as before? If he drives for fewer hours, the ordinary bus driver will simply complete fewer stages. So to say that we can increase productivity to make up for the reduction in hours, is very difficult to understand.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Surely what a bus driver does is to convey passengers from A to B. If he does that for 12 hours, he will convey more people from A to B than if he does it for 11 hours. Even with the aid of only the back of an envelope and a blunt pencil, that seems obvious.
9.11 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: This is a very interesting and revealing discussion which only emphasises what I said earlier, and I need not add very much to it. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, raised a point about hours or mileage. He thought people might attempt to make the journey more quickly and therefore less safely.
924
I can only say that, so far as my own driving experience is concerned, I have not noticed vehicles taking it very slowly under present conditions. It has been my lot—and I have no doubt it has been the lot of other noble Lords—to be driving at what I regard as a reasonable speed and then to be pressed from behind, and passed, by huge vehicles which do not seem to be inhibited about speed. But it is quite hopeless and impossible to control this on a mileage basis. While low mileages are naturally common in towns, the volume of traffic in towns is far greater and mileage cannot directly be related to fatigue or, indeed, to hours worked. It depends on other circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, asked me how to increase productivity by reducing hours. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked almost the same question, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stone-haven, said that you will take more people from A to B if you work longer. If noble Lords are prepared to stick to that theory, then the only solution to our traffic problems is for every driver to work not 14 hours a day as they are allowed to do, but 18 hours a day. That is the theory and it must be developed that way. Nobody has said this, but we are considering an Amendment which would permit employees to drive for longer hours than they do at present.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, asked how to increase productivity by reducing hours. It has been the experience of those of us who have any intimate knowledge of industry that in many cases productivity is increased by reducing hours, because at the same time you have to have different forms of management. At least 20 years ago I went to one of the then new Government factories which was just starting in Wales. It was a Wolverhampton firm, and I asked how many hours they were working. I was told 35 hours a week—and this was 20 years ago, when the normal working week was 45 hours. I asked why they were working ten hours less, and they said "Because we produce more". That was the answer. I agree that when we are thinking of an industry in which men are permitted by law to work 14 hours a day, seven days a week-98 hours a week—and in which they are permitted by law actually to drive for 77 hours out of those 98, it is

925
not perhaps so readily understandable that if you reduce that number of driving hours to 60 they might well do more in production, even in the carriage of passengers. But the first thing is that there will be less sickness; there will be less absenteenism; and there will be greater efficiency in performing their service. In the case of a bus driver, of course, you would not expect him to drive his stage in a lesser time than that permitted; he has to keep to a timetable. But there is a greater likelihood of him keeping to his time, of giving a better, a more even service, during the whole of the journey, and in that sense there is a great deal of opportunity for increased productivity. That is the answer.
LORD ST. HELENS: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? This argument was produced in the Commons by his right honaurable friend the Minister time and time again without a single concrete example. The presumption behind the whole argument is that private firms which are running bus and other services to-day, upon the existence of which their profitability depends, are making an absolute hash of their timetables, of the organisation of their operators, and all the rest of it, and that suddenly, because the bus industry is nationalised and the hours of driving reduced some extraordinary wave of efficiency is going to come from nowhere and put the whole thing on a profitable basis. Not one single concrete example has been given throughout the whole course of the debate on this matter in either House.
LORD STONHAM: It is most unfortunate that when I was in the middle of giving such an explanation—the first one, the noble Lord says, which has been given in either House—he thought fit to interrupt me and to stop me giving it. May I therefore continue, so that the noble Lord will not in future be able to say that no kind of answer has been given in either House? There are other reasons and measures for increasing productivity—the reorganisation of services; the increased used of one-man buses, which can be accomplished far more easily if the men are not working excessive hours. If you have two men and pay them, hypothetically, £18 a week each, then one man to whom you
926
might pay £20 or even £22 a week will give you far greater productivity and, incidentally, will help to solve the problem of wages, to which the noble Lord referred.
Productivity does not only mean shorter hours for a driver: it means more efficient operation of the undertaking, so that they may be able to maintain drivers' earnings notwithstanding. It has been fully recognised that the introduction of the new methods must be phased in with productivity, and both sides of the industry must consider this seriously. It really is unhelpful for noble Lords to suggest that it cannot be done, because it can be done, and there have been many proposals which are being considered by both sides of industry to bring this about. I hope, now that I have given in a way the noble, Lord will understand reasons and ways in which productivity can be increased, he will not make his statement again.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: In this particular industry I do not see how you will get increased productivity unless you drive the vehicle faster. Of course, if, instead of driving at 30 m.p.h., you drive at 60 m.p.h., you then get increased productivity—you go double the distance. That is what I can see could well happen. But I thought this Bill was here to produce greater safety. As I see it, the only way you will get productivity in this particular type of industrial activity is to drive a good deal faster, and that will not increase but decrease safety. Is that what the Government want? That seems to me a magnificent way of increasing p-oductivity—to get greater productivity and have more accidents on the road! That seems to me the kind of difficulty in which the Government are landing themselves in this Bill, as in other spheres of legislation. They say one thing and do something else. Here is another example.
LORD STONHAM: This is quite disgraceful, and quite unworthy of the noble Lord. The whole of this debate has had its basis in safety; and here is the noble Lord saying, without any kind of justification whatsoever, when every speech on that side of the Committee has been in favour of either maintaining the present very long working

927
hours or even, as his noble friends wanted, to make the permissible driving hours longer than are at present allowed, that this is going to decrease safety on the roads.
Only two minutes ago I gave a number of examples of increased productivity. I will spell it out again to the noble Lord. If you have a larger bus with two men, you do not have to drive it faster in order to increase productivity. If you have a bus which is so adapted—and I will send the noble Lord particulars of how he can go to see one—as to be a large and safe bus requiring only one man to staff it, you have increased productivity in that way. If each hour of the shorter working day was more fully occupied than those of a much longer working day, again you increase efficiency and certainly also safety. That is what we are trying to do in Part VI. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and other noble Lords opposite have conceded this. All that I am pleading is that, having conceded, as generally speaking has been conceded, the principle of Part VI, please do not let us keep on pushing for exemptions which, if we are honest, we must realise will have the effect of destroying that which noble Lords have said they support.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I should like to point out that it is not only capacity that increases productivity. There is such a thing as frequency of services and providing the customer with what he needs. This could lead to a very wide discussion on a very wide subject. I have myself pointed out the difficulties of this particular industry when one is talking of increasing productivity.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: We have covered a very large field here. Once again it is clear how interested noble Lords are in this matter. Although I feel that the Government's broad policy here is right, the Government must be aware—as I am sure is the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—that it is going to be most difficult in the passenger service vehicles to get productivity to match the reduction in hours that we want. That is particularly so in the stage carriage field. Therefore the services are in danger; and, as noble Lords know, the municipal bus managers have been
928
making strong representations. Although they have been persuaded to accept the situation, they are uneasy about it. When we come to talk about commercial goods vehicles, we find the scope for increased productivity is very much greater for a whole variety of reasons. I think that this debate has clarified the problem. While, for myself, I think that we should accept the line that the Government have taken, it leaves them with rather a difficult problem.
LORD BALERNO: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, fully understands the principle of the law of diminishing returns. The law of diminishing returns varies according to the circumstances to which it is applied. It is obviously a completely different application when it is applied to industry from when it is applied to transport. The law of diminishing returns should be worked out according to the enterprise involved; and it will be worked out by the people responsible for the conduct of that particular enterprise who will discover for themselves at what point the law of diminishing returns operates. It is therefore, to my mind, the duty of Parliament to establish a ceiling beyond which the law of diminishing returns is most unlikely to operate. In that respect I support the Amendment of my noble fried, Lord Teviot, because I think he has set, as it were, the ceiling for this law of diminishing returns, and the individual entrepreneur conducting a transport business will discover for himself, within that ceiling, what that limit is. I hope that the noble Lord will not be unduly tempted to withdraw his Amendment, and I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will yield to the persuasive argument so ably put forward by my noble friend.
9.25 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I seem to be agreed that this discussion has been more than revealing. I have been very interested to hear all the remarks that have been passed, but I do not intend to detain your Lordships by going into them individually. Before withdrawing the Amendment I should like to ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. He says that I am asking for more hours than there are now. The noble Lord has

929
said that the permitted hours are a 14-hour working day, of which 11 hours may be used for driving in a 77-hour week, I am proposing to keep the figures as they are, so would he please clarify that point and indicate that I am not asking for more than is recognised now?
LORD STONHAM: The reason the noble Lord is asking for longer driving hours is this. The Bill we are considering provides for 10 hours actual driving time. His Amendment would make it 11 hours actual driving time, which is a longer driving time than is permitted at present. The question we have to decide is whether the noble Lord and his friends actually want to go on record as voting for longer driving hours.
LORD BESWICK: Let them divide on it.
LORD TEVIOT: I am not certain that I understand that. Will the noble Lord please tell me what are the permitted hours at the present time? I say that they are 11; he tells me they are not. What are the permitted driving hours at the wheel? Could he answer that?
LORD MITCHISON: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will not be deterred. I have listened with great amusement to his noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench saying one thing and the "tail" behind "wagging the dog". I hope that the tail will succeed in wagging the dog and making the last split in the Tory Party more abundantly clear than it has been over the last half-hour. Go ahead—divide!
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: Could we not have an answer to my noble friend's question?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer!
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My noble friend Lord Teviot is correct. On my information, he is correct and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is wrong.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: At any rate, even if my noble friend's Amendment were carried, it would be limited to a six-day week, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Stonham has never stopped telling us that at the moment it is seven days a week, and that this would be the case so far as the non-fare stage buses are concerned.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer!
LORD STONHAM: I was perfectly correct. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, says that I was not correct. But the point is that of the hours worked now, the 11 hours which are permitted in almost every case, some of the time is taken up not by driving but by loading the vehicle and other jobs of that kind. But under the Bill we are considering the 10 hours would be 10 hours driving in the first stage, and subsequently in the second stage, when it comes about, nine hours. His noble friend has asked that this should be 11 hours and under the terms of the Bill it would be 11 hours driving. Therefore I am quite right in saying that he is asking for more driving hours.
LORD TEVIOT: I am not altogether satisfied. The 11 hours which the noble Lord has said is driving time would of course, include stand time, and it would not be more than at the moment The point I was making was that I was just trying to leave things as they are. However, in view of the lateness of the, hour I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD WIGG: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I must confess that my noble friend, speaking for the Government, has somewhat confused me. He is dogmatic on the question of working hours and driving time. I want him to spell this out, not in terms of tails wagging dogs or the law of diminishing returns, but in terms of what happens to the driver of a horse box. If such a driver goes to a race meting and is left swinging about while the races are on, may I take it that the only way the rule will be broken is if during the course of that day he spends actually 10 hours' driving? That is what my noble friend said, and he will worry a great many people who are not absolutely clear on the point. I must confess that his reply was not so clear and dogmatic as I would wish on this point. May I repeat the question'? If a man starts off in the morning with a horse-box and goes to a race meeting, does it mean that lie is absolutely all right so long as he does not spend more than 10 days at the wheel?
LORD STONHAM: My noble friend asked me what would happen if a man spent 10 days at the wheel—I should say that that is impossible. Probably

931
my noble friend meant 10 hours. This is one of the cases which would be considered by the Minister and which could be dealt with under the regulations that we were discussing earlier. The point is that, even without regulations under the Bill, it would be perfectly proper for a man to drive a vehicle for 10 hours' driving time, and his working day could be 121 hours, perhaps longer. The particular case cited by my noble friend is one of which we are aware, and it will be considered in general by my right honourable friend as a subject for regulation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.33 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 232B:
Page 126, line 15, at end insert—
("Provided that he may drive an extra hour on not more than two days in a working week".)
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 232B. The reason why I am moving this Amendment is so that Clause 95(1) shall read as follows:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, a driver shall not on any working day drive a vehicle or vehicles to which this Part of this Act applies for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than ten hours, provided that he may drive an extra hour on not more than two days in a working week".
The object of this Amendment is to preserve much needed flexibility to deal with peak demand and seasonal demands. I should like to refer to a few examples of how this Amendment would assist certain industries. If we take the case of the brewing industry, there can be heavy demands in hot weather and around Bank Holidays. If we take the fuel industry, there can be heavy demand in cold weather, when ice and snow go to make backlogs and orders build up. In the agricultural and horticultural industries there can be peak demands on transport facilities at harvest time, in moving produce to storage or to point of sale when in prime condition. That might cover the whole range of fruits and vegetables grown in this country. If I have the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to continue with my speech, I should like also to refer to the catering industry. Here, again, heavier demands are made on supplies of ice cream around Bank Holidays.
I think that the flexibility I am asking for in this Amendment can be useful to a large number of industries. This flexibility is essential, because under the proposals in the Bill it would not be possible to give livestock and perishable produce the present pattern of distribution. This is according to a statement made by Mr. Brighton, the chairman of the National Farmers' Union Transport Committee. Surely the farmers should not be denied the right to vary their arrangements according to the dictates of the weather.
I would add that this required flexibility is in line with standard Continental practice. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to standard Continental practice or to E.E.C. regulations, and it will be exactly in line with Continental practice when, as the noble Lord mentioned on the previous Amendment, the driving time in this country is reduced from 10 hours to 9 hours. I am quite certain that this meets with the wishes of a number of drivers (this has not been mentioned before), who would welcome the extra amount in their pay packet. I do not think it is pressurising them in any way to work longer hours every day. I am asking the Government to agree to extra flexibility on two days a week. The alternative to this desirable flexibility would be more drivers and more vehicles, and I am sure the Minister will agree that this would be uneconomic.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the next Amendment, No. 233, with this one, because it covers almost exactly the same ground. We have put this Amendment down as a probing Amendment, and I hope that we shall not be accused of doing a "cover-up" job for the road hauliers. We are actively concerned about the various safety provisions, but I do not think they go so far in this Bill as the Government seem to think they do. For instance, we are entirely with the Government as to the necessity for controlling the hours of driving. We welcome these provisions, and I am not attempting to make any exception. I am trying to find out what the Government are going to do about the rather serious matter of safety, arising from the lack of flexibility, which the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, would go a

933
long way to meet, and which my Amendment might also go some way to meet.
When you get seasonal and perishable goods travelling distances or for periods of time that are just marginal to the regulations laid down by the Bill, you get a serious problem arising. The producers, who may be farmers or horticulturists, may either have to produce extra temporary drivers, who may be in short supply, or they may run the risk of delayed deliveries, with a real danger of loss, and possibly health risks in dealing with some foodstuffs. Or they run the risk, which has been raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and which is really a very serious risk, that a lot of chances are going to be taken and a lot of dangerous driving is going to be done in order to get through in the period allowed.
I am quite well aware that there is no particular Amendment or extension of hours which makes much more sense than any other. The difference between 10 and 11 hours, for instance, covers the position of taking fish, I am told, from Newlyn to Billingsgate; and this is a very marginal case. We shall be told, I think, that people can be exempted from this clause by regulations; and as noble Lords opposite know, I think there is a very considerable case for saying that exemptions should he made only by regulations. But I do not think it is so in this particular case, because it seems to me that here, either by adopting; the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, or by adopting my own, we can give an extra flexibility to the Bill. With his you get extra flexibility; with mine you get a position where you can definitely identify in the Bill the goods for which it is necessary to make this exception without drawing the exceptions over-wide.
I think that there are very real dangers of speeding in order to defeat this Bill. I am sure there ought to be some flexibility written in in these cases of ripe, perishable goods, particularly when shipped at seasonal times by horticulturists and by farmers. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us that some way is going to be found of dealing with these problems which will not involve the dangers which we at the moment see.
9.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I want to put in a plea for flexibility, not for the reasons which have been advanced by
934
my noble friends, but for reasons concerning snow-plough crews, particularly in Scotland. A snow-plough cannot be driven by anybody; to drive o le is a skilled job. We have only a limited number of drivers available who can drive snow-ploughs on occasions when we get a severe storm. Situations have arisen where it is vital for saving life that snow-ploughs should work long and continuous hours. Not only that, but the situation has frequently arisen when snow-ploughs themselves have been bogged down and snowed up. It seems to me that, without flexibility, this provision would involve snow-plough crews in breaking the law to do their job—a job which they do unselfishly and without thought for their own comfort—and I think this is wrong.
9.44 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I agree to the valuable suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that we can discuss his Amendment, No. 233, with that of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. I do not agree that they are precisely similar, but they are in the same field. I do not know whether Amendment No. 234 would also come in the same field. If not, we will just deal with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. Lord Merrivale argued that what he was asking for was in effect the same as the draft E.E.C. regulations; but that would be the case only when the second stage of this Bill became operative, and we certainly do not know when that will be. As of now what he is comparing is our proposal of 10 hours driving plus one twice a week, with the European custom in most European countries now of nine hours a day driving plus one twice a week. So what he is asking for, certainly in the first stage, is more thin is happening in Europe now.
The second leg on which he bases his case is that unless this extra hour is granted twice a week there will be some services which cannot give the service that they now give, in fact he quoted a senior member of the Farmers' Union who said that it would not be possible to give the present' service for livestock and perishable produce. I do not know that gentleman's authority for making that statement, but certainly he could not have been quoting any Minister

935
to that effect: he is expressing a personal opinion, an opinion with which I disagree. I am not going to leave it at that. If there is any particular type of operation in which it can be shown that there is a special need for more than 10 hours a day that need can be dealt with under subsection (10).
I want to come to Lord Beaumont's point, and also to the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven and his snowploughs, because he asked for flexibility. I really think that the flexibility is within subsection (10) of this clause and part of subsection (11). Perhaps noble Lords would go through subsection (10) with me. It says:
"For the purpose of enabling vehicles to which this Part of this Act applies to be used in cases of emergency or otherwise to meet a special need, the Minister may by regulations—

(a) create exemptions from all or any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (6) of this section in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations;"

That is general because regulations are not made for momentary application.
I come now to the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, and paragraph (b) says:
"(b) empower the traffic commissioners or licensing authority for any area, subject to the provisions of the regulations—

(i) to dispense with the observance of all or any of those requirements (either generally or in such circumstances or to such extent as the commissioners or authority think fit) in any particular case for which provision is not made under paragraph (a) of this subsection;"

I can think of no more perfect example than the snowploughs that Lord Stone-haven mentioned to fit the circumstances of a particular case where they can dispense with the observance of all or any of those requirements. That is within the powers of the commissioners or the authority. The authority will not be so completely daft as to say, "No, you cannot work to clear the snow away".
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. But can the traffic commissioners do this in retrospect or have they to get a crystal ball and see where these emergencies could arise? That is my worry. I am not quite clear.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Viscount will read a little further he will see after sub-paragraph (ii), in line 38:
"and regulations under this subsection may enable any dispensation under paragraph (b)(i) of this subsection to be granted retrospectively and provide for a document purporting to be a certificate granted by virtue of paragraph (b)(ii) of this subsection to be accepted in evidence without further proof."
So I have one satisfied customer.
Now I come to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. What the noble Lord is asking for, though I am quite sure he did not mean to, is a quite substantial enlargement, to 11 hours, because it would be 11 driving hours, and therefore it is substantially more than drivers are driving now. When I was discussing Lord Teviot's Amendment he was rather apt to dispute this point with me, but I think he conceded that the 11 hours included working on unloading the vehicle and that kind of thing. But under the terms of this Amendment, 11 hours would or could be 11 hours of actual permitted driving at the wheel. Therefore there would be more hours at the wheel than now, and therefore it would be less productive.
Additionally, the introduction of the new hours rule is to be linked with the introduction of revised working practices, and operators' associations and unions will be expected to adopt new productivity agreements in the light of the requirements of Part VI of the Bill, and revised working schedules should enable vehicles to be used more intensively.
I will deal with the point about perishable produce that the noble Lord mentioned. If a journey is delayed by circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen, and as a result the limits on hours are exceeded, then Clause 95 provides the person concerned with a good defence or excuse. May I indicate the subsection in the Bill, subsection (11), where it says:
"If any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (6) of this section, or any condition having effect by virtue of regulations made under subsection (1) thereof, is contravened in the case of any driver—

(a) that driver; and

(b) any other person (being that driver's employer or a person to whose orders that driver was subject) who caused or permitted the contravention, shall be liable…but

937
a person shall not be liable to be convicted…if he proves to the Court—

(i) that the contravention was due to unavoidable delay in the completion of a journey arising out of circumstances which he could not reasonably have foreseen."

So we get that standby for the exceptional case of unforeseen circumstances.
With regard to perishable produce or livestock generally—coming back to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale this, under subsection (10), would be a matter for general consideration in the Minister's regulations. I cannot, of course, guarantee anything on this, but I can give an assurance that where a case is made under the new transport conditions and the new regulations and with the revised schedules, that the goods cannot be delivered within those hours, then it would be a good case for consideration under the regulations. Certainly that is as far as I ought to go and as far as I am going on this particular point. But I am firmly of the opinion that all reasonable points, and certainly Lord Merrivale's points, are already met by Clause 95(10). I feel, too, that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, can be met by regulations. With that, I hope that both noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their Amendments.
9.54 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for going as far as he has, but I do not think he has gone far enough. First of all, he said that, in effect, what I am asking would be in line with Continental practice only when the second stage became operative. I cannot see what is wrong in that, as I assume that the Government propose to make the second stage effective in the not too distant future.
Then, the Minister went on to quote from subsection (10). He said that the Minister may by regulations make exemptions in cases of emergency, or whenever it is necessary to meet a special need. But throughout the evening the noble Lord has been constantly saying that the Minister will, by regulation, make exemptions. It is fantastic the number of exemptions the Ministers seems to be empowered to make by regulations. I should have thought this seemed to be a much more reasonable
938
proposal, and one that would avoid the trouble of the Minister making all these exemptions: because if, in effect, he makes exemptions for the industries that I have mentioned, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has mentioned, he will have to make exemptions for the brewing, fuel, agricultural, horticultural, catering, perishable products of the sea, and livestock industries and so forth.
LORD STONHAM: Nothing I have said justifies what the noble Lord has just said. That may be his own interpretation, but cases will have to be made out.
LORD MERRIVALE: I agree. But what I am saying is that all these industries will endeavour to make out a case, and I should have though: that what I am asking to put in the Bill is reasonable. In a matter of a reasonable period of time it will be exactly in line with Common Market procedure or practice, and I cannot see what is wrong with that.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I should like to thank the Minister for his reply to the points I made on Amendment 233. I think they go a considerable way to reassure us about this. There is one point of principle, I think, between noble Lords on the Benches opposite and ourselves here, in that we think that when it is possible to define fairly closely a number of people who should be excepted it is probably better to write it into the Bill than to trust to regulations. We realise that this is not the Government's view, and we certainly do not want to press the matter at this stage.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STONHAM: We have not got as far as we hoped with the Bill, but we have got as far as we expected with the clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.