Lords Sitting of 11 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.
The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR TECHNOLOGY
3.6 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to the ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what matters the Advisory Council for Technology of the Ministry of Technology discusses and when a report of its activities may be expected.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the Advisory Council on Technology meets to advise generally on the policies of the Ministry. Its proceedings, at which the Minister takes the chair, are necessarily confidential. Matters discussed include those of immediate interest as well as important long-term policy issues which involve the work of the Department. For these reasons, a report of the Council's activities would not be practicable.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I say that I find it disappointing? It confirms the impression—
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord should ask a question.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: Is the noble Lord aware that I find his answer disappointing? Will it not confirm the impression of quite a number of people who are deeply interested in the activities of the Ministry of Technology and deeply appreciative of the complexity and difficulty of the many
1080
problems it has to deal with, but who feel that it keeps too close to its chest the means by which it reaches its decisions? May I ask the noble Lord whether he does not think there is more merit in the arrangements which exist within the corresponding Council of the Department of Education and Science, the Council for Scientific Policy, which was established at the same time as the Ministry of Technology's Council, which has already issued two reports, and which has as a representative on it a member from the Technology Council? May I ask whether it would not be appropriate for this member at least to make a report to the Council for Scientific Policy?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord was overdoing it a little. The fact that the two bodies were established at the same time does not necessarily mean that they exercise similar functions. The other Council has a specific obligation to report. The Advisory Council for Technology is an advisory body to advise the Minister, and I feel that the noble Lord has really misconceived its purpose. Having looked at some of the subjects that this Advisory Council has discussed, it is quite obvious to me that it exists to help in formulating policy and advising the Minister personally, rather than to issue independently arrived at views which could be the subject of a report. I assure the noble Lord that it would not be appropriate for this particular body to do so.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, could not the noble Lord give us some indication of the subjects which this Council has recently been discussing?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have a very long list if the noble Earl wants to hear it. It has discussed such matters as the Government's industrial policy, the Ministry's research policy, the "Brain-drain" Report, international technological co-operation, public purchasing and industrial efficiency—all the kind of matters on which it is sometimes helpful for a Minister to get advice from those outside his Department. It is quite clear that this is the purpose of this particular body.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there is great interest in these very

1081
important subjects, and that the noble Lord has made a good point for issuing a report?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has misconceived the idea of this Council. Surely it is possible for a Minister to appoint people to advise him. I think most of us would welcome the idea of Ministers' having some outside advice. But to require thereafter that they should report on the advice they give seems to me to be rather overdoing it. There are a great many reports in this field.
LORD CARRON: My Lords, as an exmember of the Advisory Council, may I ask whether the Minister would not agree that if matters discussed were not regarded as confidential many of the advisers to the Minister from industry would not be prepared to speak as clearly as they do at present?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has strengthened the case of direct knowledge. It is quite correct.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would say whether the Minister ever takes the advice tendered by the Council.

PROPOSED EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
3.11 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made towards the establishment of a European Technological Institute; whose advice is being sought; and what functions are envisaged for it, as distinct from those being performed by the existing technological institutions.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Govern-
1082
ment are still engaged in informal talks with other European countries. Discussions have also taken place with the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the National Economic Development Council. The Confederation of British Industry have also been discussing the question of industrial and technological co-operation with the corresponding organisations in other European countries. In the view of Her Majesty's Government there is some need for some machinery to concern itself with the analysis of the European market for particular products and the capacity of European industries to exploit the market opportunities and the examination of methods by which any deficiencies can be overcome, so that the European industries concerned can be made fully competitive in the world markets.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply? I appreciate that the establishment of this Institute is not possible at present, but may I ask him whether he could at the same time tell us a little of two other proposals which I understand are also under consideration, one for a European Institute of Science and Technology which is being promoted by the working group of the North Atlantic Assembly, and another for a European Investment Development Company, made by the European Public Enterprise sector? Could he assure us that effective means are available for coordinating the consideration of these proposals and for implementing them, if approved?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the question of investment is wide of the original Question, but if the noble Lord will put down another Quest on at some time we will answer it. So far as the project which is being developed under the North Atlantic Assembly is concerned, that is for an academic institute and as such is quite distinct from the United Kingdom proposal, which was for a technological centre which would have much more than academic functions and interests. So these two proposals are quite separate.

PRICES AND INCOMES BOARD REPORTS
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes have been made to them; how many of such reports recommended a lowering of prices; how many of such recommendations for lower prices have been implemented; how many of these recommendations for price reductions applied to the nationalised industries and what action has been taken by the nationalised industries concerned.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the National Board for Prices and Incomes has made 76 reports (including two general reports). Of these 40 related to prices and charges and in two of these price reductions were recommended. In one of these two cases a reduction in soap prices was made and in the other, Mallory mercury hearing-aid batteries, discussions are still taking place.
In 14 other cases, the Board's reports recommended that price increases be deferred or modified, and I am glad to say that action has been taken as recommended by the Board. The goods and services concerned in these reports included gas, the bulk supply of electricity and rail fares.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that full and comprehensive Answer, as a result of which I have no supplementary question to put.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it will take me some time to recover from that.

WEST GERMAN EMERGENCY LAWS
3.16 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 what endorsement they have given to the Emergency Laws (Notstandsgesetze) promulgated by the Government of West Germany.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, before the passage of the legislation by the German Parliament, the Three Powers jointly assured the Federal Government at the latter's request that, if these emergency laws were enacted, they would regard the rights temporarily retained under Article 5(2) of the Bonn Convention as having lapsed. Her Majesty's Government were not called upon to endorse the legislation in any way other than this, and indeed had no standing for doing so.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply may I ask him whether he is aware that in West Germany there is a great deal of opposition by liberal elements, including the trade union movement, and particularly the youth among the Social Democratic Party, to this legislation; and is there not a danger that emergency laws introduced to defend democracy may in time be used to defeat democracy? Is that in the minds of the Allies when they are considering the association with this legislation.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far the first part of the question is concerned, whatever opposition there may have been to this in Germany has been resolved by the due democratic process and the legislation has been passed by the German Parliament. We have every confidence in the basic stability and vigilance of the Federal Government, and its ability to protect the democratic process in Western Germany.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I also ask my noble friend whether he is aware (there is no reason why he should be) that while I saw the original proposals I have not seen the Act in its final form; and can he confirm the fact that

1085
it includes the use of armed forces, the conscription of all men between the ages of 18 and 45, the suspension of trade union and civil rights, imprisonment without trial, and rule by decree without Parliamentary consent? And does he regard these as contributions towards democracy.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, whatever emergency contingency measures may be contained in this legislation, every society, however democratic it may be, needs to have this kind of emergency law. The effect of this law as my noble friend will know, so far as the interests of this country are concerned, is that it now gives to the Federal Republic of Germany the duty and responsibility of ensuring the protection of the security of all armed forces stationed on West German territory. That is the only direct interest that Her Majesty's Government have in this legislation, and we undertook that when it was passed we would transfer these responsibilities to the Federal Republic. We have no other direct interest in this legislation.
LORD INGLE'WOOD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it also includes a power to take away passports?

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that it will be for the optimum convenience of the House if we adjourn the Committee stage of the Transport Bill at about 7.30 p.m. this evening. We shall then proceed to the other business on the Order Paper.
HOVERCRAFT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to; with another of the Amendments agreed to but with a further Amendment to the Bill and a consequential Amendment; and with the remaining Amendment agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendments to be printed.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House dc again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 95 [Permitted driving time and periods of duty]:
The EARL OF SELKIRK The EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 234A:
Page 126, line 29, leave out ("or (c)") and insert ("(c) or (d)".)
The noble Earl said: This is an introductory Amendment to the main Amendment, No. 236A, which is an additional sub-paragraph to paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of Clause 95. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has gone to Nigeria, though I am sure the Government are very fortunate to have him do so, because I should have been very glad to have his support on this Amendment on which he speaks with more cogency and experience than I do. My information on this subject comes from being the President of the National Ski Federation of Great Britain who are naturally concerned at the effects that this Bill, as drafted, will have or day excursions taken by young people. This applies particularly to young people, because many older people have their own cars and are not covered by this Bill.
This clause, like most of the Bill, is full of criminal offences, and a superficial reading of the Bill might leave the impression that the Government were wholly against transport. I do not think that that is so; I think it would be misconceiving the Government's intention, and I take my cue from a reading of the words of the White Paper on Transport which says:
"One of the most precious achievements of modern civilisation is mobility. It enriches social life and widens experience".
In view of that, I hope I shall have some support for this Amendment from the Government, because I do not believe that they want the effects of the Bill as drafted to be such as they are.
The problem here lies in Clause 95 (3) (c), which lays down that the working day is limited to 14 hours. If your Lordships will look at the interpretation of "working day" in Clause 102, you will see that the working day includes any period of the day from the time a man starts work to the time he finishes, whether or not he is on duty during that time. May I give one or two examples, supplied to me largely by the Scottish Ski Federation. They have made a fairly close examination of what is happening. These figures are probably well known to the Government, but it is just as well to remind them now. It has been found that in the cases of day excursions—and I am talking particularly about holiday excursions for young children, university students and youth clubs—these young people leave their home town in the early morning and go to some mountain area for hiking, climbing, skiing, or whatever it is, spend the whole day there and go back in the evening. That is the type of enterprise that I am sure everyone in this House wants to encourage and not stop, but it is pretty nearly prevented from taking place by the terms of the Bill as at present drafted.
An examination of the present system shows that in the great majority of cases the total time between departure and return exceeds 14 hours, but in very few cases were the driving hours in excess of six. An examination has been made of 74 different routings; there are many different routings which take in different places. In only 12 cases did driving hours exceed eight, and never more than nine, and they averaged about six. The remainder of the time was taken up with
1088
breaks for breakfast or coffee, long hours in the car park at the bottom of the hill or ski lift, which may be six or eight hours, lying in the heather or enjoying the sun, the evening meal or refreshment on return, making in many cases a total exceeding 14 hours. If this provision is insisted on, activities of this character will be seriously curtailed.
I seek to make an Amendment on the lines I think the Government would like to proceed with this Bill; that is to say, through regulations. The subsection dealing with these regulations which I have put here—and of course the Government are free to make the regulations entirely as they like—reads as follows:
"if during that day the vehicle or vehicles which he is driving is or are being used in connection with organised participation in a sporting activity the driving hours and working hours may be prescribed by the Minister."
There is, in fact, another way of doing it, and I suggest this only because the noble Lord may be interested in it. There is a curious conflict between the interpretation of the working day in Clause 102 and the interpretation of an interval for rest in subsection (4) of Clause 95. In subsection (4) a rest period counts although the driver may be liable to be called for duty, but the rest period as defined in the working day is counted in the working day, even though the driver is not required for duty during a specified time. The only difference is whether or not the period amounts to 11 hours. That is to say, in one case it is counted in the working day, although he may not be required for duty for quite a number of hours, and in the other case it is not counted as a period of duty although he may be on call. It seems to me a possibility that the definition of the working day might be changed to suit the particular circumstances which I have outlined to the noble Lord here.
I hope the Government will be able to meet this point. I do not believe they want to curtail this kind of activity I believe they would like to encourage it. I hope they will make suggestions which will mean that this type of activity can be carried on as now. It affects a large number of people, and I hope an increasing number of people—not only young people but people engaged in the business of driving, hotel-keepers and indeed the

1089
development of the whole area. I beg to move.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I should like to support everything the noble Earl has said. I am President of the Ski Club of Great Britain, and many of our members, particularly young people, go out from the industrial North on these expeditions into Scotland to ski and to climb and to walk. There is among those who organise these parties for the young great anxiety about the effects that this Bill will have on all these excursions. The noble Earl has put in great detail, and very clearly, the problems and the difficulties which exist. I hope the Government will look very carefully at the position and try to see that these excursions are not prevented, as I fear they may well be if the Bill goes through in its present form.
There is another point. At that time of the year when a vehicle goes away for a day like that there can be delays, perhaps due to an accident on the ski slopes, possibly because of fog or mist or snow or icy roads. This delay might unwittingly produce contravention of the provisions in this Bill. I hope that the Government will look long and earnestly and try to put right what seems to be contrary to the general national interest.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: I listened to your Lordships' debate for several hours on Tuesday in the hope that I might have an opportunity of supporting this Amendment by the noble Earl. I came to two conclusions, after sitting here some time: that speeches should be at an inverse ratio to the length of the Bill and that your Lordships could be excused for rechristening this Bill the "Transport Flexibility Bill". Flexibility was the recurring refrain proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers to stave off Amendments from the Opposition Benches which to me, at any rate, had improving merit. Always, it seemed to me, noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite refused to write into the Bill the promise of flexibility, but hoped that the Minister (perhaps it was a pious hope; I do not know) would later make exemptions by order. These concessions, or exemptions, by order will require to be legion if hardship is to be avoided for many sections of the community with
1090
no obvious connection with transport at all. Not only do increased transport costs retard the initiative and the enterprise among those in industry, but the extra burdens seep through to affect adversely every facet of living of the ordinary people.
I thought it was laudable that the Government should try to lay down reasonable limits for the working day and week of the driver. But, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, the Government, in so doing, may in this case, among other things, destroy some of the good work they are doing for youth in trying to make them active participators in healthy outdoor activities, rather than have them remain inactive spectators of town football matches or coffee d-inkers in cafes. If flexibility of approach is needed anywhere in this Bill, it is where the Bill may affect adversely the interests of youth. As the noble Earl, and the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, have pointed out, there are long rests for the bus driver taking youth on excursions to the ski-slopes, or climbers to the mountains. This is known, and should be assessed and taken into account by the Minister in this Bill. Through the Sports Council the Government must be fully aware of the blockading effect their proposed legislation would have on the youth movements of this country. To reconcile the drivers' welfare with the needs of the youth of our country to have easy and cheap access to our glens and bens makes it necessary to amend this Bill as the noble Earl suggests, or in some way that will give effect to his intentions. It might be done by direct Government grant through their Sports Council, which would offset the increased costs to these youth excursions out to the country. I should be glad to know what is the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on that possibility.
LORD HENLEY: I do not underestimate how difficult it is to put into practice what the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt and myself want to do, and it is interesting that this difficulty did not become apparent until the Bill had almost finished going through another place. When it did become apparent, and we tried to see how it could be put right, it was immediately obvious to us that it opened up a great many other difficulties and anomalies. Nevertheless,

1091
we put down an Amendment. Indeed, we changed that Amendment and put down another—that which is before your Lordships. It may be that the Government cannot accept it in its present form, but I hope that they will look at it and see whether they can devise some means for doing what we want. If they do not devise some means for doing what we want, I fear that it will inhibit certain kinds of sporting activities which none of us want to inhibit, or it will lead to widespread disregard of the law in this respect. As I say, I know how difficult it is, but I believe that it can be done and that the Government may be able to tell us how it should be done.
3.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman. It happened to me many times in another place that I had prepared an excellent speech and at the end of the day was frustrated from delivering it. I congratulate the noble Lord on his excellent speech which was not wasted, and that he has now been able to get it off his chest. The only thing that I should have liked is that before delivering it he had read subsection (10), because I think he would have found that this would have given him all the flexibility that he is demanding.
Let me say at once that the Government have not the slightest intention of doing anything which would deprive young people of legitimate or proper opportunities for sporting activities of the kind described, or indeed of any sporting activities; nor do I accept for one moment that this is what the Bill does. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that he is quite wrong in thinking that it was not until the Bill was well advanced in another place that we considered this particular proposition. The organisation to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred and of which he is President and my noble friend Lord Hunt is President-elect, the Scottish National Ski Council, have made full representations to my Department, which have been most carefully considered and are still under consideration.
The noble Earl, indeed, recited the suggestions from the Ski Council, which are that a limit of 18 hours should be allowed for drivers of express or contract
1092
carriages used in connection with organised participation in a sporting activity, provided that the aggregate driving time does not exceed eight, or preferably eight and a half hours. They say, and we know it is true, that it is common for a party to be taken by a coach to the ski-ing slopes and after some hours there to be driven back, involving a working day of 14 to 18 hours for the driver. The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, said that he feared there could possibly be contraventions of this provision. I would assure him that some of the situations we have had described to us as happening are contraventions of the present circumstances. There is no question about that.
I want now to consider just what the proposed changes involve. I would say at once to the noble Earl—I assure him firmly on this—that the provision for which he asks in his Amendment is quite unnecessary, because the Minister already has the power under subsection (10) of Clause 95 which will repay careful consideration.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Does the noble Lord mean subsection (10) or subsection (12)?
LORD STONHAM: I said, and I mean, subsection (10), a subsection which, incidentally, we considered closely on Tuesday night when the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, raised a question about snow ploughs. It is the same subsection. It gives power to make regulations to create exemptions from the requirements of subsection (3) of Clause 95 to meet any special need, and if the new limits on drivers' hours can be shown to cause serious difficulties they can, and will, be tackled in that way. It would be necessary to be satisfied that any relaxations were justifiable in safety terms as well as in terms of assisting particular types of sporting operation; because in addition to wishing to do and doing all we possibly can to encourage participation in sports by young people, and indeed by older people as well, we must have consideration for the rest of the population in regard to safety, and indeed for the welfare and well being of the drivers of the vehicles concerned. But excursions for sporting activities cover an extremely wide field—for example, football matches—and in many cases there will be no difficulty about fitting the journey

1093
into the statutory requirements, taking into account the latitude already allowed for for express and contract work under subsection (3)(c) of Clause 95, to which I would also draw the noble Earl's attention.
As regards the particular case of ski or climbing excursions—and I apologise for my speech being rather long, but I want to satisfy noble Lords on this particular point—I venture first to say that an 18-hour-long day is even longer than permitted by the existing law. That is the point I was making to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield. At present the working day is normally limited to 14 hours by the need for ten hours rest in each 24, counting from the beginning of any spell of driving. In the case of the driver of any express or contract carriage the rest period can be reduced from the normal 10 hours to eight hours once a week, if the driver has had four hours for rest and refreshment at a destination; but even in this case the working day cannot be spread over more than 16 hours. So, in so far as the noble Lord is asking for an overall day of 18 hours, and in so far as he is alleging that this happens now, then it is illegal, and I am sure he would not persist in any demand of that kind.
We have gone into this matter very carefully, I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Henley, arid I will prove it by giving details of a typical example of a day excursion for ski enthusiasts from Edinburgh or Glasgow to Aviemore, Glenshee or Glenmore. The journey time varies from five to six hours, including in the case of Glenshee and Glenmore a refreshment stop at Perth or somewhere in the neighbourhood of Perth. A day excursion would involve a driver leaving at, say, 8 o'clock in the morning and arriving at the ski centre at 1 p.m. if it were Aviemore, or about 2 p.m. if it were Glenshee or Glenmore. He would leave again about 6 p.m. in the evening so as to get back by 11 o'clock or 11.30 at night. This is a public excursion (express carriage) licensed by the traffic commissioners and would just fit into the 16-hour day. A similar excursion conveying a private party would not require a road service licence, but the same drivers' hours requirements apply under existing law and under this Bill.
1094
According to the Ski Council, over 80 per cent. of drivers of the day excursions have a 14 to 18-hour day, although an average of six hours and a maximum of eight to nine hours only is spent in driving. The Ski Council memorandum points out that many parties, especially from the North of England, travel up for the whole week-end, staying in an hotel, Friday and Saturday nights, and the drivers are likely to have a day exceeding 14 hours only on Sunday. That also means the possibility of two drivers. But under the Bill the use of two drivers will rarely be of advantage because, apart from cost, it does not help in meeting the new drivers' hours requirements. Under Section 73(4) of the 1960 Act, the time spent on a public service vehicle as a passenger is not reckoned as time spent in "driving", but no such dispensation is given in Clause 95 of this Bill. In other words, driving is driving time. As a result, a relief driver travelling with a vehicle always has the same limit to the working day as the driver who drives at the commencement of the journey. The bus industry have drawn our attention to this point in the context of long-distance coaches but without making any specific representations for the use of exemption powers.
We should certainly be unwilling, and I hope noble Lords including the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would be unwilling, to consider a relaxation beyond the 16-hours specified in existing legislation. I am sure that nobody wants that. As regards the reduction of this limit to 14 hours under the Bill, we already have considered and we shall continue to consider very carefully the case put forward by the Ski Council and any representations made by the bus operators themselves whose responsibility it is to observe these statutory requirements. But this particular point has riot been made to date in any representations from the bus operators' national associations.
This is not the only one. The other evening my noble friend Lord Wigg raised a point about horse-boxes and hours worked in conveying horses; and of course there are greyhounds and other livestock where we have to consider whether the spreadover will meet particular requirements. But I assure the noble Earl that his Amendment is unnecessary, and that if the new limits on drivers'

1095
hours can be shown to cause serious difficulties, whether it be in connection with ski-ing or in the movement of horses or greyhounds or other livestock, then under regulations which can be made under subsection (10) of Clause 95, if the "special need" is shown, regulations will most certainly be considered by the Minister. We have this matter very much in mind. Our intentions are no less than those of the noble Earl, and the only point on which we insist is that we are certainly not prepared in any case to allow the hours to be longer than they are at present, and we certainly must at all times consider the safety of all who use the roads and the wellbeing of the drivers.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: Could the noble Lord clarify the position of a driver who has perhaps driven a party to the ski-fields and is then not required for duty for 6 or 8 hours, so that he has plenty of time to have a rest? Everybody knows that the 'bus is not leaving until 4 or 5 in the afternoon, what is the position there? It seems to me that that is the kind of occasion that creates real difficulty. There is not very much driving time; there is plenty of time for the driver to sleep and rest. But, so far as I understand the position, those hours when he is not on duty and when he can sleep and rest count as duty. Am I wrong, or is that right?
Lord STONHAM: The noble Lord is perfectly right that the total hours spent on the job count as duty, and the Bill proposes, under normal conditions, a limit of 14 hours. Whether the time is spent driving or sleeping, if you like, until the journey back, it counts as part of the ordinary period of 14 hours. What I am saying in addition is that the Bill, as now drafted, allows the Minister, if the need can be shown, to make regulations which would meet the kind of situation which the noble Lord, the noble Earl, and my noble friend Lord Wigg, and others, have in mind.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: May I just add a word of support to my noble friend Lord Selkirk's plea for this exemption, which is really what is asked for here. We recognise that in Clause 95(10), the Minister has this power, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has made the point that 18 hours would be in
1096
excess of the law as it stands to-day. I think it would be perhaps asking a little much to ask him to go beyond that, but obviously it would be very valuable if there were a prospect that the Minister would be sympathetic to continuing the present arrangement of a weekly journey, a once-a-week journey, at 16 hours. This would cover, I imagine, most of the excursions to which my noble friend is referring. These are special cases, and it was, I think, welcome to all of us to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the Government have needs like this very much in mind. I felt sure they would have, and I am glad to hear it; and if the noble Lord were able to tell us that the Minister will consider sympathetically making an exemption that would allow the continuation of the 16-hour weekly excursion, as under the present law, I think that would go a long way to meeting this particular need. I am bound to say that the noble Lord has my sympathy when he says that he cannot extend it for an extra couple of hours, when one remembers that the Bill seeks to reduce the hours.
LORD POPPLEWELL: There is another side to this story. Of course everybody wants to do everything possible to encourage young people to go on these sporting trips into the open air, but there is a genuine difficulty that the bus driver, who may have been driving for five or six hours, arrives at his destination and is asked to stand down possibly for five, six, seven, eight or nine hours. Where does he get his rest? He is in charge of the bus, and has to bring the young people back home from the sporting event. Several accidents have occurred, and questions have arisen as to whether the person in charge of the vehicle has been a little overtired at the time.
Because of the safety factor, I feel that we ought not to press my noble friend to go further than he has done. If a bus was taking a sporting party to a certain venue and would be travelling for five or six hours, or even longer, one way to get over the difficulty would be to provide a relief driver. The additonal cost involved would be negligible, or very small compared to the distance the bus would have to travel. I look at this matter from a practical point of view, since I know the great strain that is

1097
imposed by these split turns when a driver goes a long distance and then has nowhere to rest. It is no use saying that he can go to sleep in the bus. One knows what happens when these drivers get to their destination. They try to have a rest, or they just hang about and probably go for a drink or so. They are human beings, and if there is a pub open they probably go into it. My noble friend has gone a long way towards recognising the difficulties and in making the offer which he has made. Therefore I think that we should press him no further.
LORD KAHN: Noble Lords who have spoken in favor of the Amendment have been in favour of organised active participation in sporting activities. I am worried by the wider discretionary powers possessed by the Minister under subsection (10). I should like to express the hope that the Minister's sympathy will be mainly in the direction of organised active participation in sporting activities and very much less in favour of organised passive participation in sporting activity, even though it may be strongly supported by the enterprise which provide3 the transport.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may return to the Amendment, it appears to be rather limited. It does not propose an exemption, but provides that in certain widely defined cases the matter should be left to the Minister. The Bill itself contains another power for the Minister to make proper provision in cases of special need. I listened to all the instances which were given and I could not find one which did not fall within the words "special need". Under the terms of the Amendment, in the case of a sporting activity the Minister is not bound to do anything; he is required only to consider the matter. It is left to him. Under the Bill he is equally bound to consider the question in the rather wider context of special need.
I suggest that this is the wrong sort of Amendment, and that this matter ought to be left to the Minister. If one puts into the Bill a number of specific cases, one will leave out a number of others and so will be narrowing what the Minister will consider to be "special need". It is quite wrong to try to cover
1098
every case which might occur by writing it into the Bill. In cases of this kind there has to be a discretionary power. It is better to leave it in general terms.
Nobody, however ingenious, will be able to think of all the cases which the Minister will be able to consider in the Bill as it is. Another consideration is that transport and the requirements of transport change with the passage of time. If one thought of all the special cases which apply at present, they would not necessarily embrace all the special cases which would have to be met in future. It is therefore necessary to leave a discretionary power with the Minister to deal with the matter and to have the provision in general terms, rather than to narrow its effect by writing specific cases into the Bill.
I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. I am not speaking on any particular Party line. I am speaking as a lawyer who both in this House and in another place over a long period of time, has had to deal with the language of Bills. I am sure that I am right in saying that it is a mistake to try to include all these cases. One must reconcile, on the one hand, the safety of the public and decent conditions of work for the driver with, on the other hand, the need in a number of cases to have exceptionally long hours. The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, will be glad to hear that there is provision in the Bill for rest and also for refreshment, so that the driver will not have to starve—and will even be allowed to have a drink.
3.59 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: I should like to say a word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal. I would point out that in Scotland one does not know in advance whether or not the snow will be there. One does not know whether it is going to be a sunny weekend until on a Friday night one hears the B.B.C. say so in the weather news. These young people are going to want their trucks at short notice. If it is to be impossible to obtain a truck because reference has to be made to London or to the Minister, then this is the sort of situation that will land Scotland in a frenzy of despair. You cannot blame them. They have to refer to Whitehall matters which ought to be looked at locally.

1099
I know that there is provision, in the text to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred, for reference to local licensing authorities, but I should like to invite the noble Lord to inform the Committee a little more closely. Is it possible for him to give us an assurance for instance, that to the greatest degree possible flexible arrangements will be laid on by which permission can be granted locally, and by which there will not have to be long-distance telephone calls to London and references to a Minister, which take three weeks to go through? Can a standing permission be given, in exceptional circumstances, to certain truck owners and drivers to carry young people when the weather is good, or when the snow happens to be there? I assure the Government that this is of very great importance to the young people.
LORD STONHAM: So far as Lord Hankey's question is concerned, about the young people not knowing until the Friday night whether the snow will be there, that has nothing to do with the matter, and it is really quite absurd to suggest that, if it was there on Friday night, they would then have to apply to the Minister for permission. The Minister will deal with a situation generally. There will be a class of exemptions, and if this one were agreed it would be one of a class. The provision in the subsection lower down, to which the noble Lord referred, for reference to a local commissioner (and, by the way, it could be a retrospective reference) is to cover a sudden emergency—not to enable people to ski on snow, but to shift it out of the way so that people can use the roads. It is for that kind of emergency. I hope the noble Lord is fully satisfied on that point.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Popplewell, because from his very great practical knowledge and experience he put the difficulties of the workers in this matter. I do not put this forward as a reproach, but it seems to me that in so many of the arguments from the Benches opposite the well-being of the workers in transport has been the very last consideration in noble Lords' minds. There should be a balance in this matter.
My noble friend Lord Mitchison mentioned a matter of which any noble Lord
1100
who has ever been a Minister must be aware: that the more examples of exceptions you put into a Bill, the less flexibility there is and the more you restrict the Minister's discretion. If you were to put in, for example, ski-ing and horseboxes, you would immediately imply that greyhounds did not count. Those noble Lords who are pressing for exemptions and exceptions to be written into the Bill are not pressing for flexibility; they are pressing for rigidity.
The noble Lord, Lord Kahn, asked me whether, in making regulations, the Minister would favour what I might call organised participation in sports, as opposed to spectator participation. I may not be quoting the noble Lord accurately, but I think that is what he had in mind. I can assure him that exemptions can be made according to the merits of the case being considered, and, quite obviously, the ski-ing case would have greater merit. Another factor is that in most cases that I can think of at the moment, if there is merely spectator participation, the people can probably be taken there and back well within a 14-hour day.
I should like to come to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. He fully understands my position, because he has himself been in the same boat many times. I must say to the noble Lord—I hope he will accept this—that I am sure he would not expect me to give an open-ended assurance. Secondly, I must remind him that my right honourable friend the Minister has made it clear that there cannot be a mass of exemptions. If they were granted so readily, quite obviously it would destroy this clause of the Bill and there would be no purpose at all in having it. But, equally, I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend will very carefully consider—and has already said so—making exemptions if a good case is made out.
As regards the question about 16 hours, of course I cannot say that the period would be 16 hours. What I can say, however, is that unless it was more than 14 hours there would be no purpose at all in regulation, because it would be in the Bill. I think we have had an extremely useful debate. I hope that the ski-ing associations, both in Scotland and in England, will feel that their case will be fully looked after by the Bill and by

1101
the Minister, and that other similar sporting organisations will feel the same way. I hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn.
LORD BALERNO: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whether he is aware that a great many of these trips to the ski-slopes, especially in winter, are made in mini-buses and mini-vans which are commercial vehicles but usually owned by a single individual? I presume that vehicles such as these, which have a commercial licence, will come under the regulation in this part of the Bill. Being individually owned, these vehicles can travel very cheaply for quite a long time, and the owners can start very early.
May I point out to the noble Lord, that it is not much good arriving at Avie-more to ski at 1 p.m. on a winter's afternoon? It is necessary to get there very early. It would still be dark, under standard, time, on arrival, but not by the time you have your skis on and get on to the ski-lift. You see the sun rise as you go up—which is the ideal thing to do if it is a fine morning on a winter's day. If it continues to be a fine day, you will not want to be off that slope until 6 o'clock standard time, and it will be 7 o'clock before you can possibly get back into your bus to go home. That means a start from Edinburgh, or Glasgow, at about 6 or 6.30 in the morning, and you will not be back much before 11 p.m. if you have a good meal on the way back. Therefore, I think that the hours which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave are not in accordance with the circumstances as they exist. I am saying this from experience, through having helped to organise ski parties of boys going up to the Cairngorms and other parts.
LORD STONHAM: I have no doubt that there are special arrangements which would get you from Edinburgh to Aviemore at 9 o'clock in the morning. But the skiers would not have to look out of the window, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, suggested, to see whether there was any snow, because it would be pitch dark then. But the times which I quoted, of leaving at 8 o'clock and getting there at I o'clock, allowing for refreshments, are actual times. I was quoting not imaginary times but actual times of
1102
buses and coaches. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, of that.
With regard to his question about individually owned vehicles, it does not matter whether they are mini-t uses or even private cars. If they are used for hire or reward, the drivers come under these regulations in the Bill, which means that if there were not regulations making special arrangements for these ski-journeys the total day for the driver would be 14 hours. If regulations were made allowing a longer overall working day, they would be the same for minibus or private car drivers as for coach or bus drivers. I think we are all agreed that that is so. It may well be—I do not know—that if special regulations are made, it might not be possible for somebody in Edinburgh to hire a minibus to leave at 4 o'clock in the morning and not get back until one o'clock the next morning. That might well be possible. He might enjoy one or two less runs or miss seeing the sunset; but if thereby, by that supreme deprivation, it saved one or two lives on the road, it would be worth while.
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful for the trouble which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has taken in answering this Amendment. He has answered as fully as I know he is able, and I am very grateful to him. As a matter of fact, I never mentioned 18 hours the whole time I spoke, but I know that he was speaking from the brief which was given to him. I am afraid, however, that I must say that what the noble Lord said, when it is read elsewhere, will sound like the cold voice of London bureaucracy. The noble Lord really had no feeling of the sort of problem which exists in Scotland.
I should like to deal with de point which the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, made. He said that drivers will arrive there and have nothing to do. Of course, when they are off duty at night time they may, for all I know, go to nightclubs. They may go anywhere: no one can say that they will sleep. Will the noble Lord consider 'whether proper rest facilities are available? In many cases the rest period is 8 hours. If it were 11 hours it would be perfectly all right; the operation would come in. But if it is only 8 hours it does not come in. I am not going to press the noble Lord for an

1103
answer now, but will he look again at the definition of "working day" in Clause 102, and again, in Clause 95(4), at what is called "an interval for rest"? There is really a conflict between those two. In one case, that of "an interval for rest", a man may be called for duty at any time, but that counts as time off, whereas during the period when the bus is waiting for the party to come back, although he is off duty and can do what he likes—he can sleep or do anything he likes—that counts towards his working day. I ask the noble Lord to look at that and tell us a little more about this at Report stage, because it really is important.
It is not good enough for the noble Lord to say that the Bill does not do what I have said it does. It does do what I have said it does. Not only that; the Minister has not made up his mind how to amend it. I think we are entitled to know that. It is all very well to say, "We will leave it all to the Minister". We have not yet quite abrogated the responsibility of Parliament. Parliament is supposed to discuss these issues, and not just hand them over to the Minister and say, "Please make up your mind". I really think that the noble Lord ought to say a little more about this if he can.
I am surprised, too, that there is no question of double-manning. I do not see the advantage of abolishing double-manning. Most of your Lordships must have changed seats with your wives at one time or another to rest each other. It is a perfectly normal thing to do, and there is no hardship in it. Two people can take turns to drive without difficulty. I really cannot understand this. I read the Bill and I was astonished to find no reference to double-manning. I was even more astonished to hear the noble Lord say that it was deliberate policy, to abolish double-manning. I ask the noble Lord to look at this again and to tell us a little more on Report stage. I do not want to press this Amendment now because I think the Government are with us in this principle, but I wish they would get a little way away from these rather rigid regulations.
LORD HURCOMB: I do not want to prolong this debate, but am I right in understanding that under regulations the Minister will be able to give the
1104
licensing authorities discretion to deal with individual or particular cases; that there will be no question of individual or particular cases being referred to the Minister, and that the regulations will empower the licensing authorities to deal with a class of case and apply their own discretion as to what particular applications they will grant? If that is so, it seems to me that the machinery ought to work quite smoothly subject to one point which I made in another connection a day or two ago; that is, that the operators themselves keep in close touch with the licensing authority and its clerk, and they get to know the nature of the business they have to deal with.
There is one other point which has not been referred to. The subsection empowers the Minister to make regulations which will enable dispensations to be granted retrospectively, and for a document purporting to be a certificate to be accepted in evidence without further proof. Surely that provision will enable these very short-term applications to be dealt with even on the telephone. The clerk to the commissioners will say, "That is all right and you will get the document next week." If I am wrong in those assumptions, I shall feel inclined to join with the noble Earl in pressing the point further. But having had some experience in these things I assume they are going to work in the way I have described.
LORD STONHAM: I know that my noble friend Lord Hurcomb has had very great experience in these matters, but I am not sure that they are going to work in the way he describes, although I am sure they are going to work very smoothly. If the noble Lord will look again at subsection (10) he will see that it says:
"…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; …"

Under paragraph (a) the Minister will make regulations with regard to particular types of journey for particular causes or reasons, not with regard to individual journeys. He may deal by regulation with the problem of the ski journeys, the problem of the horse-boxes, the problem of carrying perishable produce and things

1105
of that kind. If he does make a regulation covering those classes, there will he no need for application to local commissioners or anyone else. So it is a general application.
With regard to the traffic commissioners or the licensing authority—paragraph (b)—and:in particular to the reference to applications being granted retrospectively, these would be certainly for local and individual cases. An example was mentioned on Tuesday night by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, of the need to clear roads, and possibly the need to use a snowplough beyond the hours. That is the kind of situation which would be dealt with locally and individually, and could and indeed should be dealt with retrospectively, because you have to deal with the emergency when it arises and, as it were, get approval afterwards. I hope that I have covered the two points raised by my noble friend.
With regard to the final words of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I must say that I found it extraordinary that he should say, "We must not leave everything to the Minister", when the very Amendment which we have discussed for an hour includes the words,
"in connection with organised participation in a sporting activity the driving hours and working hours may be prescribed by the Minister".
In other words, he is now condemning the very thing which in his Amendment he asks your Lordships to accept. I know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and I know that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has not a little mind; but he is being a little too inconsistent here.
The only other thing (and I will look at what he says, although I have already looked at it very carefully; I do know subsection (10)) is this. If the noble Earl accepts, as indeed he must, that where a good case is shown the Minister may by regulation meet the situation, then his plea—although the noble Earl disowned the 18-hour reference—is for something beyond that. I am sure we do not want that. The noble Earl said that what I had said would he read as stern and stiff bureaucracy, and that I had been reading from a brief. I think I should tell him that it is half an hour since I dropped the brief—and I hope that I have been talking common sense ever since. I hope I have convinced the noble Earl
1106
that it is perfectly proper and safe for him to withdraw this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It may be perfectly proper; but I am not quite sure that it is perfectly safe. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.22 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 126, line 34, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("thirteen").
The noble Lord said: At first sight, this Amendment seems to relate to a slightly different point on the spreadover of the working day, where, in this case, four hours' rest is not a possibility. Certainly this Amendment aims for flexibility; but there, I think, any similarity ends, because it opens up entirely new lines of thought. This Amendment seeks to raise the proposed spread-over of hours in a working day by one hour from 12½ hours to 13½. The time of only 2½ hours which, under the Bill, may lapse between the hours at the wheel and the end of the working day seem insufficient in that many lorry drivers spend so much of the time waiting to load and unload. I fear I only know of queueing at docks by hearsay, but anyone who, as I do, lives in East Anglia must know well of the delays which occur at such places as beet sugar factories and flour mills.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of Part VI is that, at this, of all times, it must be dependent upon productivity agreements, a subject really first aired on Tuesday afternoon by my noble friend Lord St. Helens. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, also made on Tuesday, that longer hours are not necessarily synonymous with productivity. He referred to other factors such as sickness, absenteeism, keeping to timetables and reorganising of services. But I am advised that, to give jug one example, the waiting time at a wholesale grocery warehouse can vary almost unpredictably for the driver from half an hour to 5 hours. Doubtless better scheduling could avoid this, but such warehouses could be taking in goods from up to as many as 300 suppliers. Reorganisation and the rebuilding of premises and marshalling areas, to quote the noble Lord's words, "to keep to the

1107
timetables and to reorganise the services" cannot take place in the twinkling of an eye. Yet the Minister has referred in another place to the spring as being the time when it is hoped this clause would be brought into effect. Columns 2903/4 of the Report of the Committee proceedings refer to this.
The reduced spread-over will also hit work which entails very little driving on the roads but, due to the nature of the job or to the weather, long hours. People putting up electric signs and furniture removers are examples that spring to mind; and there will be problems also for the construction industry where a driver transporting his fellow workers to and from a site will have to make the homeward journey within the driver's hours if he has been driving a vehicle around the site. This is something—and I bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said about thinking of the welfare of the persons working—which may hit the construction industry during the long summer days.
This Amendment would also assist the passenger service vehicles; and here we touch for a moment on the last Amendment. It is true that coach tours either to the seaside or to the Highlands are to some extent provided for under subsection (3)(c) allowing a 14 hour day with 4 hours off. But many noble Lords will be familiar with the popular so-called scenic tours, which stop briefly at historic houses and beauty spots, and which will not qualify so easily for a 14-hour day. If that is so, then people will find that there will be greatly increased fares and, possibly a reduced calibre of drivers; for page 37 of the 50th Report of the Prices and Incomes Board shows the present shortage of drivers in company undertakings. On this side of the House I think it is true to say that we believe that the Government are expecting impossibly quickly a speed-up in the turn-round of heavy goods vehicles. If there is something in this argument, surely it should not be impossible to agree an Amendment to give a little flexibility to the spread-over rules. Surely the principle of this Amendment cannot endanger road safety, for nowhere would it involve extra driving time. I have submitted many examples, including work where the driving is only incidental. On the
1108
vital ground of continued productivity —and, I believe, in this Amendment, to road safety—I beg to move.
LORD ST. HELENS: I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. It is one which seems eminently sensible to noble Lords on this side of the House. We do not object to a limitation on the hours a driver spends behind the wheel. This is the whole point of the argument. My noble friend has said there are many occasions when drivers spend hours "hanging about" in their vehicles, in coffee houses, perhaps at livestock shows. There is another occasion he did not mention: when there is an abnormal load and the driver may have to wait a long time in a lay by for a police escort or until the peak traffic is off the roads. Surely there ought to be some flexibility from the Government on a point like this.
LORD STONHAM: I find it a novel argument that a longer working day is in the interest of road safety. It is an argument that I cannot accept. It seems to me extraordinary that noble Lords should advance this argument because, of all the workers who come immediately to mind, it is noble Lords more than anyone else who spend time "hanging about". You come in at 2.30 p.m. You may not leave again until 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock; and you have probably done a morning's work before that. But at 10 p.m. or a little later you may not have said a word; you may not have done anything more energetic than to walk from here to the Peer's Guest Room. But I notice that you all are very anxious to go home and you all appear to be quite tired at the end of the day. Therefore to suggest that the longer day does not fatigue you does not impress me at all.
My normal day starts at 7 or 7.30 and usually it is when I am not actually working that I seem to get most tired. I must hand it to noble Lords opposite. They do not give up easily. The Liberals in the other place "tried this on" at 14 hours; now noble Lords opposite have split the difference and asked for an extra hour. It seems that everything possible is to be tried in order to avoid reducing this over-long day in transport. But I do not think there is a single noble Lord opposite who does not agree that

1109
it is still, even with the provisions of this Bill, an over-long day.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that people using coaches would be facing greatly increased fares and then: would be a shortage of drivers. My Lords, having regard to some of the fatal accidents on the Continent, I feel that even if that were the case—and I do not accept it for a moment, because, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, said, there are to be improvements as a result of productivity changes—in the interests of the people concerned, the people travelling and driving, we must stand firm on this.
The arguments which have been advanced and which are so continually advanced in every Amendment to which we listen, ignore, completely the public safety aims in this part of the Bill. And this is wholly contrary to the instincts of noble Lords who move these Amendments; they would not do this to their own people or to anyone for whom they were personally responsible. But here this seems to be reasonably remote and they feel that they can keep on moving Amendments so that these hours should be long. Those aims would not be served by allowing a man still to be driving who started work 13½ hours before. It would mean that you start at 8 o'clock and you are still driving after 9 o'clock at night up to 9.30; that is 13½ hours. If you have driven perhaps 150 miles there and 150 miles back, even though you have waited about for 4 or 5 hours in between, in our view it is too long.
The Minister would from the point of view of public safety have preferred to stick to the simple rule of a minimum 11-hour working day; but he has recognised that there would be substantial practical difficulties, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, pointed out, if some spread-over were not permitted. Accordingly, when the new restrictions on drivers' hours are first introduced, the 12½ hour spread-over will be permitted for drivers of all vehicles to which Part VI applies. This arrangement will cease at the later stage except in the special case of stage bus operation, where there is the particular problem of carrying peak traffic at both ends of the day.
1110
I would advise the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that we consulted bus owners about this matter before the Bill was published. Frankly, they were troubled initially at the spread-over being restricted to l2½ hours, but that is not an aspect on which they have pressed us strongly since then. Scheduling adjustments will be necessary, of course, hut this change is not a revolution. The noble Lord said that it would be extremely difficult to get it done by the spring, but that is nine months hence, and of course it will not be difficult. Certainly the unions would be strongly opposed to any extension beyond 12½ hours. The temporary concessions in the Bill for the initial stages of the operation of this new limit on hours will, in our view, assist bus operators with their scheduling problems; for example the extension of driving time from nine to ten hours real driving time, the extension of the 12½ hours spread-over to non-stage services, and the fortnightly instead of the weekly rest day for stage bus drivers. We have leaned over backwards in this matter in order to help, and some might think that we have leaned too far. But now my back is straight and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
4.35 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I find a good deal of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, persuasive, but I think he went far beyond anything that was justified in telling us on this side of the Chamber that we completely ignored the public safety aims of the Bill. That is simply not true. My noble friend Lord Belstead put a very reasonable case. As he rightly said, he did not argue that this would increase the road safety factor but that it would not detract from it. It would not increase the driving hours. I had not intended to speak on this Amendment but in the light of the charge made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I feel that can do no less than add one or two points which I ask the noble Lord to consider. Let us take first of all the Government's policy to bring their driving hour regulations into line with the European Convention. The E.E.C. Convention is for a 13-hour spread-over, as the noble Lord knows. That is only a proposal the

1111
drivers are doing more now. Obviously, if it is the intention of the Government to come into line with that it would be necessary to raise the figure of 12½ hours to 13. I am sure the noble Lord would not say that it is the policy of E.E.C. to ignore public safety in proposing something a little longer than 12½ hours for the spread-over.
My noble friend Lord Belstead is perfectly right when he says that the success of the introduction of these new driving regulations will depend on a significant increase in productivity, and this point was stressed by Lord Stonham's right honourable colleague in another place. He stressed the necessity for that before the change was made, and this, of course, relates particularly to problems of turn-round and delays in loading and unloading with which we are all familiar. h would be ridiculous for the noble Lord to try to put us in the position of imposing on drivers an unreasonably long working day or week. It simply does not happen. The strength of the trade unions involved is such that they are more than capable of protecting the interests of their members.
In fact, as the noble Lord knows by looking at the Prices and Incomes Board's Report the position is that the average hours worked at present are 57. In practice, if a man wants to work very long hours, he does, and if he does not wish to do so he does not; and everyone knows that this is so. What we are here suggesting is that real flexibility will be needed. There will be all kinds of problems about shortening these hours. We are not saying that you should add to the driving time—we recognise the need to reduce that—but we are saying that we think that extra flexibility is needed in the overall time in order to allow for all the many unpredictable circumstances that will arise; and it would be quite wrong for the noble Lord to make any such assumption as that we are not aware of the public safety aims. We are, and that is why we support the general intention. We are trying to help the noble Lord to make the Bill practical as well.
LORD STONHAM: I will comment only on what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said about Europe. I accept what he said about the reasonable case put by his noble friend Lord
1112
Belstead, who always puts a reasonable case. My only feeling about these cases is that noble Lords are insistent on trying, by the creation of exceptions in particular parts of the industry, to keep the hours longer than I think they should safely be or should be in the interests of the staffs.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, quoted in aid the European limits under the draft E.E.C. regulations. If you take the limits as proposed in the Bill for the "first stage" and as proposed in the draft regulations, I do not think that they help the noble Lord very much. The arrangements under the Bill which we are now considering, for example, contain our proposal for the hours of driving to be 10 at the wheel. In the European proposals we find 9 at the wheel or 10 twice a week. That is an example where we are substantially higher. Then, regarding the length of the working day, we are now proposing 12½ hours—that is what we are debating—or 14 hours for express contract bus drivers if including 4 hours continuous off duty. The European working day is 13 hours. I do not think there is anything in the argument to aid the noble Lord. It may well be that in some European countries they are working longer hours. But I think that we have this right. If anything, we have erred by trying to be too ready to meet those who are anxious not to see any change. I feel that this Amendment should not be pressed.
LORD BELSTEAD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his full reply and in particular for the details he has given us of the E.E.C. draft regulations. I thought it was perhaps a little sweeping of the noble Lord to say that the hours which we propose were longer than they should be, bearing in mind that this Amendment relates specifically to the overall working day and to nothing else, and bearing in mind the 13 hours which the noble Lord has generously given us across the Table and the fact that in Europe they can use sleeper berths. I do not say for one moment that I am in favour of that, but I certainly think that the noble Lord was rather sweeping.
It is interesting to notice that in the Bill the reduction of the spread-over is marginally greater than the reduction in

1113
drivers' hours. This is really a rhetorical statement, but it is something that interests many people who have read the Bill and I still wonder slightly why this was the balance. However we may talk round it, and whatever pleasantries we may indulge in, the matter comes back to productivity agreements. On Tuesday evening I was listening to the noble Lord when he was speaking about agreements with bus drivers. I do not want to misrepresent him and these are the words he used:
"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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/7/68, col. 896.]
But where is the productivity going to come from in the Amendment which we are discussing row—namely, in the turn-round of vehicles? I can only add a tailpiece to my Amendment. The old "C" licence holders—the people putting up electric signs, the furniture removers—and the "abnormal load" men of my noble friend Lord St. Helens, waiting for their police escorts, will regard the Government's reply with concern.
I will not conceal that I am greatly disappointed at the noble Lord's reply. I had hoped that in the last few words that I submitted to your Lordships in moving the Amendment I might have offered a chink by which the Government could agree to some form of Amendment, if not this one, that would give us at least some assurance along the lines of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, on another subject, and allow possibly a little longer than two days a week. The noble Lord is not willing to consider this, so we in our turn obviously will have to consider his words before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 235A:
Page 126, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 235A. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable various industries which operate split shift systems to operate economically. One of
1114
the industries I have in mind is the newspaper industry, and perhaps I may clarify the position by giving an example of a publisher in the Provinces of morning and evening papers. This will show that spread-over is an essential part of distribution. Apart from staff on normal duties, five drivers work from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. and then from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., and a further five drivers work from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. and again from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
As the Bill is drafted, to carry out this split shift system it would be necessary to engage additional drivers, because those already employed will not be able to carry out the second portions of their shifts earlier because the evening papers to be delivered would not be available. I would add that the example I. am quoting is not a hypothetical, but an actual, case. The conditions to which I refer are similar to those affecting the bus industry, but while there are to he provisions to cater for the bus industry there is nothing for the requirements of the newspaper industry. I thins it is essential that we should allow such industries to operate economically.
LORD STONHAM: The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, would enable all drivers to extend their working day to 14 hours if they are able to have a period of 4 hours in which to obtain rest and refreshment. At present we have this option for drivers who spend the whole day driving express or contract coaches. My right honourable friend would prefer to stick to the familiar rule of an 11-hour total working day. He recognises that in the bus and coach industry there would be a substantial practical difficulty if this wore enforced, and subsection (3)(c) is it tended to cater for the long day excursion or holiday run where a coach is driven to a seaside or other resort and stays there for some hours before returning. To make up for the longer working day a 4-hour break is required so that the driver is at work for only 10 hours.
We see no reason for extending this option to other classes of industrial operations, especially as, somewhat reluctantly, the Minister has agreed that during the "first stage" there should be a spread-over of 12½ hours for all drivers and not stage bus drivers only, Os was his first intention. As I listened to the

1115
noble Lord's case about the newspaper vans, it seemed to me that a 12½hour spread-over ought to meet this case, if a little adjustment were made to enable them to comply with the spread-over.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but, as I mentioned, it would be necessary to take on additional drivers because the evening papers would not be available to be delivered; therefore the second shift could not start earlier.
LORD STONHAM: I can only suggest that this case would have to be submitted for consideration. Certainly I cannot agree with the Amendment to leave out sub-paragraph (i), which would enable all drivers to work a 14-hour spread-over, subject to a 4-hour break. The noble Lord has based his demand for a very large change on one example. I should not have thought that it would occur generally in deliveries like that, except in cases where a firm had both a morning and an evening paper. We really cannot argue from one example that there should be, as it were, a general exemption. I will certainly look at what the noble Lord has said, but it is no case for the Amendment, as a whole, that he has put forward.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Could not paragraph (c) have been entirely covered by subsection (10)(a), to which he referred earlier? In other words, is not the whole of paragraph (c) quite unnecessary? He has made a special exemption for seaside parties. If that is the case, why should he not make a special exemption for people going mountaineering?
LORD STONHAM: I thought I made it clear that if the Minister decided there was a strong case for a particular class of traffic, a regulation would be made for a particular whole class. But Lord Merivale's Amendment is not asking for a particular class of user. It is asking that for all drivers, whatever they drive and whatever they do, there should be a 14-hour spread-over, subject only to this 4 hours off for rest in the middle. This is what is unacceptable. We think that 12½, hours, in the first place, is the utmost limit for the ordinary working day, subject to any regulation which the Minister may make for a special class of traffic
1116
or occupation. From the one example the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has quoted, it is impossible to say whether there is such a case here. If there is, it is for the industry concerned to make it. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, did not argue for his skiers that there must be an overall exemption for everybody. He was asking for it for a particular class of user.
LORD LINDGREN: I intervene in this debate only for one reason. It is the function of the Government to get their legislation through, and their supporters ought to keep quiet and let the Opposition argue, so long as they have full satisfaction in regard to the matters contained in the Bill and how they are dealt with by the Front Bench. That we have. The more one argues from the Government side, the more ammunition one gives to the Opposition to argue further. I rise only because of the difference between the "split turn" and the overall turn. There is far more method in the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, than in the other Amendments we have been discussing this afternoon.
There is a lot of difference between a "split turn", whether your overall hours of duty are 14 or 16 hours, if in the break between 6 o'clock in the morning and 4 o'clock in the afternoon you can go home, dig your garden, have a cup of tea and have a decent lunch, and then go back to work. That is a break which does not make the overall day so tiring for the worker. It is what takes away from social life, and everything else, that is not to be encouraged from a general trade union point of view, or from the point of view of the individual.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, talked about the publishing business and newspapers. Of course, on their runs of delivery and distribution there are short runs and long runs. I should take a lot of convincing that a good roster clerk in the transport section of the publishing office could not provide a roster which would enable a driver to come within the limits of this Bill. The difference between this Amendment and those that we were talking about before—the long-haul driver who has been on from 6 o'clock in the morning, and is still on at 12 o'clock at night—is this. It has been argued opposite that he is free because

1117
he is not driving, but he is sometimes under a bigger strain. There is nothing more tiring for a man who has driven a lorry to arrive at the place for delivery only to find that it cannot be accepted. He has to hang about; he argues with all sorts of people to see whether he can deliver; he rings up his firm to say: "Shall I leave it here, or come back home?". Hanging about on a job, when one cannot leave the job, is often more tiring than doing the job. I do not support this Amendment, although I certainly think there is more merit in it than in the other Amendments put forward to-day. But even in regard to this Amendment, I think a good roster clerk could cover the regulations quite easily.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I was sorry to hear the noble Lord say that he was not anxious to intervene from the Government side, because if he and other supporters of the Government intervened, this would mean that the discussion would go on and other matters would be raised. Surely the whole purpose of a Committee stage is to try to improve the Bill, whether the speakers are Government supporters or in Opposition. The noble Lord has just made an interesting arid useful contribution out of his great experience of these matters. I should hope that the philosophy he mentioned will not be followed, and that all noble Lords will contribute to make this a better Bill—and, gracious me! it needs to be made a better Bill.
I just want to make this comment. Earlier this week the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, took me to task for making certain references to productivity, when I said that it seemed to me that in many directions the only way you could get increased productivity was by going faster with a vehicle, and that might increase danger. Here is an example of these newspaper drivers, and, so far as I can see, if the Bill goes through as it is now, it must decrease productivity. So far as I am aware, the arrangements that have been in existence for quite a long time for the delivery of newspapers have not been questioned or considered to be a risk. Here seems to me to be another example of the difficulties that are being made for industry in this Bill. I hope that the Government will take a further look at this Amendment.
LORD FERRIER: Arising out of what my noble friend Lord Wakefield has just said, I rise to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, a question. I was a little shocked by his reference to the suggestion that noble Lords on this side were inclined to disregard the problem of safety. As your Lordships are aware, I asked a Question the other day about the Road Research Laboratory's Report. We are led to believe that this has been completed, although it has not been printed. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whether he has access to that Report, and whether the statement that he and his right honourable friend have made about the effect of tiredness upon actual accidents is supported by the figures in the Report, which now extends over a matter of a couple years. I say this in sup loft of what my noble friend Lord Wakefield said. Productivity is essential, but safety must not be sacrificed to it, and it seems proper that we should refer to the scientific examination of road accidents to see what effect this has had in recent years, with the new roads and new regulations, on the incidence of accidents.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Wakefield and Lord Ferrier for their support, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, fir his limited support. If I may answer one point made by the noble Lord Lord Lindgren, he referred to hours of work being catered for by a roster clerk. A roster clerk has been at work, if I may put it that way, because in effect some drivers start at 3 o'clock, some at 4 o'clock; but in the second shift they all have to start at 2 o'clock and some finish at 5 o'clock and some at 6 o'clock. So what has been suggested is not always possible even by using a roster clerk, because there is the question of the availability of newspapers. So it cannot always be adjusted as one wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, very kindly said that he would look at this matter again. I trust that he will not consider simply the words of my Amendment hut the intention behind it. I hope he will consider the various industries that operate split-shift systems and which carry goods in their own vehicles.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, I do not want there to be any misunderstanding at all.

1119
I made it clear—at least I hope I did—that I completely reject any suggestion, for which the Amendment asks, that there should be an increase in the overall working day to 14 hours subject to a 4-hour period for recreation. That I reject completely. What I did say was that I would look at the particular case cited by the noble Lord.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at the particular case. Will he also consider that there may be other particular cases? I do not want to give a whole list of examples. I referred to one industry. There may be other industries concerned, and I presume that they would have to make out a case under subsection (10). What I should also like the noble Lord to look at is this. Subsection (4) says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, there shall be, between any two successive working days of a driver, an interval for rest which—

(a) subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, shall not be of less than eleven hours".

Paragraph (b) refers only to the bus and coach industry. So could the noble Lord also see, when he is considering this, whether this subsection could possibly be adjusted so to suit not only the convenience of the bus and coach industry but also that of such industries as I have mentioned, like the newspaper industry, which operate a "split-shift" system? On that condition, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 236A:
Page 126, line 42, insert—
("() if during that day the vehicle or vehicles which he is driving is or are being used in connection with organised participation in a sporting activity the driving hours and working hours may be prescribed by the Minister.")
The noble Earl said: In view of previous discussion, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.3 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 127, line 18, leave out ("sixty") and insert ("sixty-six").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. In subsection (5) the limitation is 60 hours on duty during the week, and our Amendment would have the effect of raising this figure to 66; in other words, six times the 11 hours a day which is permitted under the Bill. This is a further attempt to get additional flexibility into the Bill. I thought my noble friend Lord Merrivale made out a cogent case of certain problems over split-shift working, the split turn, which will affect some industries. It is impossible to predict all the different circumstances that exist in all the industries which are going to be affected by this Bill, but one thing is quite sure: the more flexibility there is, the better.
I do not believe that the problem will be in the length of time spent at the wheel; it is going to be much more in the waiting, the turning round, the loading and unloading, et cetera. It is this kind of flexibility that we believe will be needed when the Bill comes to be put into practice. It occurred to me when the noble Lord was speaking about the E.E.C. regulations, and when he was giving us some details, that there was one rather important feature of the proposals which he did not mention. That is that on two days a week a 15-hour spread-over is included in the schedule. While the normal schedule will be 13 hours a day, on two days a week a 15-hour spread-over would be allowed.
I believe this will be necessary, because if we enter the Common Market, as is indeed the Government's intention when possible, then we shall want to move our regulations so far as we can in step with theirs; but also in order to give additional flexibility in the practical working of these regulations. My Amendment on the Order Paper refers to the figure of 66, but if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, does not like that—and I rather imagine that he probably will not—I shall be very happy at the Report stage to put down an alternative to this of an extended spread-over day on two days a week, similar to the provision in the E.E.C. system. I am sure that this kind of flexibility is going to be needed, and it is in that spirit that I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I am gratified that in moving this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has

1121
already indicated that he has some misgivings about it. I do not wonder at it. Noble Lords opposite continually talk about flexibility. When I point out that there is all the flexibility in the world in subsection (10) of this clause, it is apparent that all their contentions boil down to the fact that to them there is only one interpretation of "flexibility", and that is that the chaps must be flexible enough to work longer hours—more hours all the time. Every Amendment I have considered for the last three days has been a demand that the chaps should work longer, and I am constantly exhorted to regard this as making for greater flexibility.
Now the particular proposal is that it should be for 66 hours a week instead of 60. No doubt it is argued that it will provide greater flexibility in working out stage drivers' schedules so that full advantage may be taken of the permitted 10 hours a day. It is looking at the matter the wrong way round. The weekly duty limit has been fixed in the Bill at 60 hours as a reasonable figure in its own right. Surely noble Lords do not want everyone to be like Ministers and work about a hundred hours a week. Sixty hours is enough for any normal individual to work. It gives an average of 10 hours a day for a six-day week. We put the daily limit at 11 hours for the very purpose of allowing some flexibility in hours of duly in any given day, but with an overall total of 60 hours a week.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, quoted in aid the E.E.C. proposals on drivers' hours. Not for the first time I got out my sheet, and I see that the proposals under the E.E.C. draft regulations for the week are 54 hours' driving; not 60, certainly not 66, but 54. We have had to discuss this matter, of course, with the unions and with the bus operators. If the noble Lord wants to put down an Amendment on Report to make the total working week 54 hours, then of course I will promise to look at it, but really I cannot be favourably disposed towards any suggestion that there might be a way of permitting the total working week to be more than 60 hours. Really, I do not think that noble Lords should ask for it. I think that in fixing the figure at 60 hours we have taken the only possible step and we have made all the
1122
concessions that should be made in this respect.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I wonder if the noble Lord can help us. He apparently has the figures, from which he read, showing that the Continental draft regulations were 54 hours' driving, but I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is talking about is hours of duty, which is not the same as hours of driving. Are we comparing like with like?
LORD STONHAM: The E.E.C. proposals do not propose to regulate the total working time. This is the driving time.
LORD TEVIOT: I earnestly support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for 66 hours, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I am a little outspoken on this matter, because I speak from personal experience. I do not think it is fair of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to say that on this side of the Committee we are remote and that we are not considering safety. In my view we are all considering safety; and I, for one, am speaking for Drivers. Drivers are extremely worried about the possibility of the hours being cut, because it cuts their earning capacity. The 66-hour maximum working week would in fact cut down the present maximum by 14 per cent. Personally I should like to see it even higher, but I am prepared to concede 66. If the maximum proposed in this Bill were to stand, there would be a cut of 22 per cent. I did my sums in the train and perhaps the noble Lord would care to check them.
LORD STONHAM: Before I start checking the noble Lord's arithmetic, surely he is aware that at present it is legally possible to work 77 hours a week?
LORD TEVIOT: Yes, indeed.
LORD STONHAM: Or, of course, allowing for standby time, it could be 98 hours. Which figure did the noble Lord take?
LORD TEVIOT: I took 17 over 77 times 100. There was a schoolmaster sitting opposite me, and he worked it out at 22 per cent. As I was saying, many more scheduled public services would be cut, and already there are many

1123
scheduled services all over the country which are unable to run owing to lack of staff. Also there are many goods which are not delivered, for the same reason, because the drivers simply will not drive if their earnings are so low. They will do something else.
There is another point that I wish to make, quite forcibly: I suppose this is another hidden purpose of the Government: to put more passengers and goods on to the railways. I notice that they do not consider cutting the hours there. One can well imagine why. Only last week we had the railway "go-slow." That was a complete misnomer, because in fact it was merely a ban on overtime and a work-to-rule. I even heard one noble Lord on the Government Front Bench refer to it as a "strike", but what in fact caused the trouble was the ban on overtime. Also, under the new powers of the Prices and Incomes Act, I think I am right in saying that within three-quarters of an hour yesterday of the Act being placed on the Statute Book the Minister of Employment and Productivity froze an increase of £1 for the busmen. Therefore these drivers are being attacked both ways: first, by withholding their pay increase, and secondly by cutting their earning capacity.
LORD BELSTEAD: I should like to make a slightly different point, but on the same subject. There are various people (to some of whom the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred) working in agriculture who from time to time need to work an inordinately long week. In all fairness, it must be said that we on this side of the Committee are not trying to suggest that we should approve of everybody working a 66-hour week, and I feel sure the Minister, when he makes his regulations, will have due regard to animal welfare, the maintenance of services and the risk of accidents. But the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, puts us in a very difficult position. He has said to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that it is pointless to bring up individual examples because subsection (10) will deal with them. Unfortunately for anyone who has read the Bill and the proceedings on it, the Minister said (I quote from column 2828 of the Report):
"I do not think that anyone could seriously suggest that in regulations intended to maintain safety on the roads one could draw a
1124
distinction between passenger vehicles and goods vehicles."
Our difficulty in speaking from this side of the Committee is to determine what are the criteria for subsection (10). We are really being asked to accept a pig in a poke.
I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, what I regret is an example that has been submitted to me, but it puts in a nutshell what I am trying to say. We all know that road and rail in this country play a vital part in the distribution of milk, yet last year 750 million gallons were distributed by road, as opposed to 104½ million gallons by rail. Of course the distribution to and from the retailers is done entirely by road. As milk collection occurs in rural areas, where the recruitment of drivers is not easy, the distributors try to cover annual holidays and periods of sickness by sometimes requiring their drivers to work what I agree are inordinately long hours. It should be borne in mind, however, that they are driving along roads of low-traffic density and that milk is the only food the cost of which is determined by law and the price of which affects every household in the country. Will this case be considered in regard to subsection (10); and, if so, why?
LORD FERRIER: I should like to make a contribution to what my noble friend Lord Teviot has said. Referring to the question of safety and of hours worked, I have in my hand a letter from a manufacturing organisation in Scotland which says that the restrictions on drivers' hours will make it extremely difficult for them to carry out their runs from Edinburgh to London and back within the week. They add that the reduction in drivers' hours will necessitate a complete reorganisation which would appear to benefit nobody.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made some remarks with regard to the views on safety of the noble Lords on this side of the Committee. This manufacturing organisation manufactures products to which I have already referred in this debate. They reckon that they cannot possibly send those products by rail because of the delicacy of the heavy wire gauze they manufacture. There is no question of a risk to safety, but one of their problems is that they have to go so slowly

1125
in order to ensure that the loads are carried with the greatest security. Therefore it is reasonable to say that the reduction in hours without some flexibility—and I almost hesitate to mention the word—is bound to affect productivity.
5.19 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I should like to follow up with a further question on what my noble friends have already said. What is the magic about the figure 60? Why should it not be 56 or 64? Is there some reason for the figure 60? A short while ago my noble friend Lord Ferrier asked whether scientific information was available from research organisations or other sources which would give us scientific and realistic information about hours of driving and safety. Surely we ought to know this? On this side of the Committee we are as much concerned with safety as anybody else; but equally we are concerned with productivity.
The Government again and again have urged productivity in the country. That is quite right. But so far as I can see this Bill will hit productivity very badly. I want to see a combination of safety and productivity, and I do not want to see productivity jeopardised and thrown overboard for some hypothetical idea that if you work so many hours it is excessive. when perhaps it is not so at all. I think we ought to have far more information than we have now as to why these hours ought to be shortened, reducing productivity, and also some proper scientific basis to justify the Government's arguments to this House. Is the noble Lord able to give the House some further information, more information than we have had, as to the basis for the number of hours inserted in the Bill for driving, whether by the day or the week or any other period?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask the noble Lord two specific questions? He keeps on referring to the E.E.C. proposals. Have any of the E.E.C. countries ratified these proposals or indicated that they are about to do so? Secondly, I gather that the 54 hours mentioned by the noble Lord was driving time. Would he confirm that this is actually when the vehicle's engine is running or it is in motion? If so, would he not agree that probably in 95 per cent. of cases 60 hours
1126
on duty, or even 66, would be far more limiting than 54 hours driving time?
LORD STONHAM: I would remind your Lordships that what we are discussing is whether or not the total driving working week should be 66 hours or 60; that is all we are discussing in this Amendment. It has been a very wide ranging debate, and I want to bring it back to the point we are discussing. We are not arguing about cutting the working driving day or extending the working driving day. The working driving day is 11 hours; that is still what it is in the Bill. All we say in addition is that the total working driving week should not exceed 60 hours. The first reason for that is because, frankly, from every point of view, we think that 60 hours driving is quite long enough. Limiting the total driving week to 60 hours adds flexibility, which noble Lords are so concerned about, because it means that if it suits the proprietor a man could work 11 hours a day for five days and perhaps half a day for the rest, which we think is an advantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to the fact that 750 million gallons of milk are delivered by road, and he said: "I know a lot of these chaps are working over-long hours, but how is the milk to be delivered if they do not work over-long hours?" The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke about percentages of reduction. He called in aid a school-master to work out the percentages. I am talking now about delivering milk. The noble Lord said that cutting down from the 77 hours which they can now work to 60 was a 22 per cent. cut. That is about right; it is a 22½ per cent. cut; I have checked. But even at 66 hours, at which noble Lords would settle, there is a 14·3 per cent. cut. I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, how is the milk to be delivered if one man in seven is not there?
LORD BELSTEAD: With great respect to the noble Lord, he is not asking me. This is a question I have asked him.
LORD STONHAM: I am much too old to be caught by that one. What the noble Lord is saying is that it is going to be utterly impossible. And yet, presumably, if we make the working week, not the working day but the working

1127
week, six hours longer, all these problems would, he thinks, be solved. Of course they would not be. They are going to be solved by increased productivity. They are going to be solved by making better use of a man's working day. They are going to be solved by sensible re-arrangements where they are necessary. But the one thing that we are quite adamant about is that we are not going to have a working week longer than 60 hours.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, asked by what scientific means we arrive at the figure. By the same scientific means that we assess the fact that most people now work a 40 hour five day week. There has been the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred. There is the possibility of scientific assessment, and certainly there are facts that prove that longer hours mean slower reactions in the event of emergency, and slower reactions lead to accidents.
LORD HAWKE: I was rather astonished by the noble Lord's remark that most people work a 40 hour five day week. All statistics that I have read lead me to suggest that the working week is much nearer to 47 hours on average.
LORD STONHAM: Certainly with overtime the average week may be several hours longer, though not as much as 47, and certainly nothing like 60 hours in the exacting job of driving in heavy traffic. The noble Lord has helped to prove my point.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, said that I kept on referring to the E.E.C. proposals and asked me whether any had been ratified. I understand that the E.E.C. countries are still discussing these proposals, and I am sure he will be aware that there are a number of European countries where in the main the proposals which it is hoped will be ratified are in fact in actual practice now, and are the actual working day or working week. I am afraid I did not take a note of his second question before he sat down, but I think I know what it is. I think he said that 60 hours of total duty would be far less exacting than so many hours driving, but I did not catch how many hours.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The noble Lord is quite right; that was the drift of my question. I should like to make it clear that there are obviously exceptions to this. But in most cases of 60 hours duty I should have thought—I have not been able to get hold of the figures—that 20 per cent. of that time was spent not driving but sitting round and waiting for goods to be loaded or unloaded or for various other reasons. In the industry that I know I think this is certainly the case, and I think the figure is higher than 20 per cent., but I have not been able to get the precise figure.
LORD STONHAM: I think there is a great deal in what the noble Duke says. With regard to the hours permitted now—I am not talking about under this Bill, but in operation now—they include all the work spent connected with the vehicle or its load—booking in the vehicle, washing, repairs, loading, unloading, documentation of the load or the vehicle, booking them out and, of course, ordinary waiting time. I think this is another reason for what we have in the Bill and not for what noble Lords are proposing, because in the Bill we allow for 10 hours actual driving time in the first stage, and even when you get to the second stage 9 hours actual driving time. There is, therefore, a great deal of scope for organisation in business, so that you use your drivers for the maximum time, and not in washing cars, repairs, maintenance and so on. But this is an important departure.
Our present proposals are as the result not only of our own judgment, but of our discussions with both sides of industry; and certainly the unions would not agree to any relaxation of the proposals in the Bill in this particular regard. But with regard to the length of the working week, the only proposition that has come during this debate is that from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who said that between now and Report I might look at the possibility of something on the lines proposed by his noble friend Lord Merrivale last Tuesday. I think that was what the noble Lord intended. Of course I am prepared to consider these matters, but I cannot hold out any hope of the Government agreeing to an extension of the total working week beyond 60 hours.
5.32 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: During the course of his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to increased productivity, and he said that 60 hours in a week would be perfectly adequate on account of the increased productivity which is to be achieved by the provisions of the Bill. But if one considers paragraph 5 of Appendix 2 of the White Paper The Transport of Freight, it reads as follows:
"Reforms on this scale"—
that is, on the scale of goods vehicle drivers' hours—
"will call for a big effort from management and unions within the industry to ensure that they can be carried through without major increases in operating costs and without undue hardship to drivers. Increased productivity will be the key factor and evidence of real progress towards this objective by both sides of the industry will be essential before the enabling powers are used to bring the new law into effect."
Does that mean that until this increased productivity has been achieved by industry, with the co-operation of the unions and the Government, these new laws will not come into effect?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: We have again traversed some of the same field, but not by any means all of it, and I think again this has been a debate in regard to which I am sure the noble Lord will not underestimate the strength of feeling on these Benches about how this increased productivity is to be achieved. How is industry to be kept going without serious upset when these new regulations are brought in? Of course the purpose of this Amendment was primarily to introduce an additional flexibility, and the noble Lord's answer that subsection (10) gives all the necessary flexibility does not really give the answer that we want. This will deal with special cases, and I do not doubt that the Minister will deal fairly with them.
I feel much more concerned with the general position which industry will have to cope with when these hours are reduced, and while they are still struggling, as undoubtedly they will be next spring, to get the extra productivity that the noble Lord wants. My noble friend Lord Merrivale was quite correct when he quoted the White Paper. I think that
1130
both the White Paper and the Minister postulate that extra productivity is needed before the hours are reduced. Any additional flexibility would help industry to achieve just that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was quite right in saying that the suggestion I made was not with regard to hours of driving, but hours of spread-over. I quoted the proposition in the E.E.C. regulations which will allow two days a week for a 15 hour spread-over. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the E.E.C. proposition does not provide for hours on duty. It provides for hours of driving and total hours of the spread-over. But it struck me that a proposition on those lines, and perhaps two days a week where additional hours of duty were allowed, might have given additional flexibility which would have helped industry to adapt to what they will have to adapt to. I still think there is something in this. For myself, as I have said before, I accept the general proposition about driving hours, that they should be shortened, that there is sufficient medical evidence—
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask whether he means a facility for extra driving hours on two days a week within the same total work-Mg week, or does he want to extend the working week: as well?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I think my proposition would inevitably extend the working week, because I think that 60 hours is rather tight. Where you allow 11 hours a day on duty it means in fact that only 5½ full days can be worked in a week. The noble Lord tried to wring our withers on this side by saying that we were simply concerned to make the drivers work longer hours. But my reply is fact and not theory. The drivers will work the hours that they want to work. In fact, we know from the Prices and Incomes Report that the average hours worked now, when they could drive for 77 hours a week, is 57 hours. It is true that some drivers work more than that if they want to do a lot of overtime. But the average driver does not want to work all that time, and therefore he does not do overtime. This will continue to be the position in the future. But there will be problems arising. Some men will wish to drive for longer,

1131
and where they do and industries have problems, no doubt the drivers will be willing to help the industry out with the transport problem.
I do not think that it makes sense, in terms of modern conditions, to suggest that what we are talking about here, which is the legal structure within which these men work—in extending that or asking for it not to be reduced so much—means that we are exploiting the men who are driving. They are well able to look after themselves, and they do. My noble friend Lord Teviot, who speaks with some experience of this, has added a good deal of weight to the debate.
Leaving aside these rather contentious matters, I accept, as I was saying when the noble Lord intervened, the general proposition that there is medical evidence that fatigue makes for slower reactions, and therefore the general trend of the Government's policy. I also accept that in most, though not all, European countries, the driving hours are shorter than they are here, and that therefore the Government's case is, I think, soundly based. Therefore I am supporting it.
My noble friends and I are, I am sure, right to say that there is a massive problem here in adapting to the change if we are to maintain, which we must do, the productivity of our economy. This is what we are continuously concerned with, to try to find the best solution to that problem. We have talked for quite a long time about this, I think not without value. With the permission of the Committee I will now withdraw this Amendment, but I shall consider putting down another Amendment which may give some additional flexibility here but in the more limited field of two days a week. Perhaps this might be an Amendment upon which the Government will look more favourably. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 237Z:
Page 127, line 19, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I was a little disappointed that the last Amendment was not pressed, but I am glad to hear that there might be a further Amendment on the Report stage. I do not wish
1132
to detain your Lordships long on this Amendment, but I feel that people should be allowed to work seven days a week if they want to. I cannot see that having a day off enhances the degree of safety. It does not matter so much now; as the law stands it is going to be 60 hours. Six into 60 is 10 hours a day. If it was 7 hours it is not quite so bad. But I believe it should be flexible. It could be argued that a man should have a day off but not on social grounds. That is not what we are concerned with in this Bill.
I am dealing here solely with the drivers' point of view. There are many noble Lords who are more intimate with the operators' point of view, and I am sure we all look forward to hearing from them. There are times in all our lives when it is necesary to earn more money. It may be a young man who is buying a house while raising a family, or a man who enjoys Continental holidays, or somebody who, through no fault of his own, finds himself having to work to pay for something. I was told when I first came into your Lordships' House that all these Bills were about people and persons. We have heard this afternoon mostly about technicalities. I should like your Lordships to realise that this is essentially about people. There is another very important factor. If you do have seven days, it makes the amount of hours more flexible, so that you can spread out the number of working hours in seven days instead of six. I beg to move.
LORD McLEAVY: I was rather surprised that the noble Lord should move this Amendment. While I appreciate that he has spent some little time associated with bus driving, I think I can claim to have spent a lifetime in association with the bus industry. All the discussion this afternoon has paid no regard whatsoever to the human aspect of this problem. Many of your Lordships do not realise that bus drivers are under exceptional strain, with the volume of traffic and the difficulty of keeping up to their schedules. There is a very serious danger that as these bus drivers get to the age of 60 they may not be able to carry on with their job. It has been within my own personal knowledge that bus drivers, when they have reached round about 60 years of age, have had

1133
to ask to be taken off on to either conducting or going into the shed, because they were no longer able to stand the strain of the work.
Your Lordships appear to pay no regard whatsoever to the human aspect of this problem. In the bus industry to-day, the undertakings are experiencing extreme difficulty in finding drivers and conductors, for the simple reason that the conditions and the wages are not in any way comparable with those which prevail in other sections of industry. We are finding that even the London Transport Board have for a number of years had to go abroad to recruit staff from Jamaica and other places, because the simple fact is that very few of our people will accept this type of work.
I think it is absurd for your Lordships to suggest that the question whether the fatigue is too great does not really matter. There is another aspect of the problem which I think noble Lords have completely forgotten. If a bus driver, because he has been driving too long, is involved in an accident, maybe a fatal accident, he is in danger not only of prosecution but of losing his livelihood, because he could have his licence taken away as a result.
The people engaged in the bus undertakings, the drivers and the conductors, are doing, and have done over the years, a magnificent job. They are serving the public at most inconvenient times. The general public normally go to work on a Monday morning and finish at five or half-past five in the evening. They have their Sundays and Saturdays off, work five days a week, and enjoy the company of their families on Bank Holidays. I think it is not fully appreciated by your Lordships that drivers and conductors have conditions of employment which mean that they have to work Bank Holidays, Sundays, split turns and late duties, and they are in many cases denied much of the social entertainment and companionship that other sections of industry enjoy.
I ask your Lordships, in considering all these questions, to consider first of all the human element. I pay tribute here in the House of Lords to the men and the women who are working on our bus services for the magnificent job they are doing. Do not talk about their working longer hours; talk about reducing their
1134
hours and increasing their wages, so that they may enjoy some of the benefits which are enjoyed by other sections of the community.
LORD SOMERS: I think the noble Lord has been a little misleading. He is talking about bus drivers having to work extra hours as though there was some element of compulsion in it, but there was nothing of that in my noble friend's Amendment. He merely said that they should be allowed to if they wanted to. There are, as he pointed out, times, particularly when one is young, when one wants to earn a little extra money. I have known that myself. Like the noble Lord opposite, I have the greatest respect for bus drivers; they do a splendid job. But if they want the opportunity to earn a little extra money, I cannot see why they should not be allowed to. Certainly I do not think the noble Lord would Lind a single Member on this side of the House who would agree that they should be forced to.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: Her Majesty's Government are very anxious indeed, quite rightly, to encourage tourism. They want to see more visitors from overseas coming into this country. One of the most popular reasons for people visiting this country is the seven-day and ten-day tours. The drivers of these tours continue throughout the tour. Not only do they drive the coach but they also give a great deal of information to the passengers they carry on the coaches throughout the tour. If I understand this Bill aright, it means that no longer can the same driver accompany his passengers if the tour is beyond six days. If it is a seven-day tour or a ten-day tour, then he cannot carry on. I have heard that this would be a great mistake. During these tours, there is a great deal of companionship and a great deal of respect by the passengers for their driver. A great friendship undoubtedly arises with tour drivers who carry out these tours, with their great knowledge of the countryside and of the places they visit.
I should like to know from the noble Lord, who is to reply for the Government, whether it is intended that these seven-day and ten-day tours should be compelled to have a change of driver during the tour? If so, this would be most unfortunate. These drivers are not driving overlong hours or anything of

1135
the kind. In fact, all the social amenities and advantages to which reference has been made are enjoyed by these drivers, who can add so much to the pleasure of overseas visitors on these six-, seven- and ten-day tours. Could we have some information which has a bearing on the opportunities and advantages for visitors from overseas to enjoy tours in this country?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: It may well have been true 20, 30 or 40 years ago that there were employers who said to their men, "It is not very easy to get a job. If you come and drive for us, you must be prepared to work very long hours"; that is to say, hours which did damage to the man's family life or his health. One admits that there used to be employers like that. But is this so now? The Government must bring evidence to show that there are now bus owners who make drivers work longer hours than is good for them. One does not say to a doctor, "You must not see a patient except on six days in the week." Nor would you say the same sort of thing to people who lead an intellectual life. The noble Lord opposite must have had the same sort of experience that I had when I was a Minister. There was no day's rest if one was a Minister. One thought one had to do it, but it was voluntary.
What worries me is that there may be still employers who say to men, "You have got to work longer hours than can possibly be good for you". But is there any evidence of this? We have surely improved in the last 25 years. We have had a fairly long stretch of pretty high employment, and in modern times it does not pay employers to force men to work if they do not want to. I should like to know if there is any evidence to the contrary.
LORD FERRIER: I asked the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, a question which he has not answered. I have the feeling that noble Lords opposite are being a little patronising about this matter of safety and also about this subject being a human one. I resent the suggestion that we on this side are not concerned with the human element. As for the point which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, as to whether we had any
1136
evidence in this matter, has the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had any access to the latest report of the Road Research Laboratory, which we know was in Government hands at the beginning of May? If so, is it possible for him to let us know whether that report points to the stage at which the working of long hours has a bearing on the incidence of accidents?
The noble Lord pointed to me and indicated that I did not seem to know that long hours cause accidents. Of course I know it; everybody knows it. Many ghastly accidents have been caused by excessively long hours, and of course everything must be done, and has been done, to stop it. But what is the scientific analysis as to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, about hours of work in relation to a ten-day tour? The noble Lord, Lord McLeavy, asked, "What about the men?" But we must remember the productivity of the men, for without productivity we shall all "go bust". One knows that many young, busy people are leaving this country to go to other countries where they can work long hours without being interfered with. This matter is of great concern to us all, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will not talk down to us as they have been doing.
LORD HAWKE: When a bus driver drives a coach for some other employer on his rest day, who goes to gaol—the coach owner or the driver?
5.55 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will not be surprised when I say that I shall oppose his Amendment. We are back on the same ground that we covered for a few hours on Tuesday evening. When the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, moved his Amendment he said that he felt very lonely on that side because he was not getting much support for his Amendment.
LORD TEVIOT: I do not feel lonely now, since I have had considerable support on this side of the Committee.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I was just going to say that I hope the noble Lord is now a bit more cheerful because he has had a good deal of support: so much so that I doubt very much whether

1137
I can answer all the questions which have been asked. But I will answer one or two of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, made a point about the tourist industry, which we all agree is an important industry in this country, especially the coaches, some of which tour for more than a week at a time. The point is that under this Bill one of these coaches on a long tour of say 10 or more days could not carry on without the one-day rest.
The Amendment, of course, seeks to leave out subsection (6), which says:
"… there shall be, in the case of each working week of a driver, a period of not less than twenty-four hours for which he is off duty, being a period either falling wholly in that week or beginning in that week and ending in the next week …."
That is what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, seeks to eliminate from the Bill. The effect would be that a driver would not be required to have a continuous period of 24 hours off duty each week, or fortnight in the case of a stage bus driver. Subsection (6) is quite new, as is subsection (5). One day off a week will help protect drivers and the public from dangers arising from the cumulative effects of fatigue. This safety aspect, and the welfare of the drivers, is something which has run through the discussion on both sides. I am sure that both sides are interested in seeing that drivers have decent working conditions so that they shall be in a fit condition.
The other two matters which nave cropped up many times in this discussion have been the words "flexibility" and "productivity" Speaker after speaker has mentioned these two words. But it is strange that on this series of Amendments, where it has been said that the Government should be more flexible in these matters, nearly every point which has been made has been in the same direction—namely, longer hours for the driver and a longer working week. The matter of productivity we discussed at length on Tuesday, and I thought that my noble friend Lord Stonham made quite clearly the point that longer hours do not in every case guarantee more productivity. Very often they have the opposite effect.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: On the specific point of these tours, which the
1138
noble Lord agrees are of enormous importance, what evidence, if any, has he that excessive hours have been worked by any of those drivers?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I have no evidence with me. But this subsection will try to guarantee that the driver has decent working conditions in future and that he will have a day off, which will prevent him getting into the condition which the noble Earl is so worried about. In view of the shortage of bus drivers and the prevalence of rest day working in the bus industry, the Government recognise that serious difficulty might be caused, and that the service which can be given to the public might suffer unduly if a weekly rest day requirement were brought in at once. Therefore, during the "first stage" paragraph (b) will permit a stage bus driver to have a clay off once in each fortnight. In other cases it should generally be possible to meet the requirement. But there may be a few special cases where it will genuinely be impossible to stick to the rules in full, or where some time will be needed to adjust certain of them. Subsections (10) and (12) give the Minister ample powers to deal with such cases by regulation. Those concerned will, however, have to make out a strong case. I hope noble Lords will listen to the Minister's words on this matter during the Report stage in the Commons. He said:
"In all fairness I do not see these exceptions being used on a massive scale because there would be no purpose in having the regulations on the hours at all; but certainly there is provision, in the light of experience, for us to see where defined classes could if necessary be exempted."
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, talked about conditions of driving forty years ago. I think he will agree that conditions have changed vastly in those years. To make a comparison would take quite a long time, and we do not have so much time available to-night. I do not think there are any other specific points to which I want to refer now, but in view of what I have said I hope the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will decide to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Will the noble Lord answer my question? If a bus driver drives for another employer on his rest day, who commits the offence— the driver or the person who employs him?
LORD LINDGREN: Would the noble Lord agree that, before an employer takes on a workman he should see that he has a driving licence, and should also see that he comes within the regulations for doing the work required? They would both be committing an offence.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: That is what I was going to say—they would both be committing an offence.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: Here, again, if I have understood the noble Lord aright, we have an example of the Government's advocating one thing and, by legislation, preventing it from happening. Here is this example of the great need to encourage overseas visitors to come here. There are the very popular seven and ten-day tours, and one of the most important and vital needs is a first-class driver who is a character, who can make himself most agreeable to his passengers. We have had no evidence that these seven and ten-day tours are in any way unsafe because of the hours of work and the very detailed schedule which they operate.
I should like to know, quite clearly, whether there is provision in the Bill for the operators of those tours to be allowed to have the same driver carrying on throughout the whole seven or ten days. Is provision made for the Minister to give exemption to the drivers concerned, so that they can drive these special tours continuously for the seven or ten days? At present it is not allowed, and the Government will be playing "old havoc" with these seven and ten-day tours, which is quite contrary to Government policy, that of the encouragement of tourism here. So again we have this contradiction with the Government saying one thing and legislating to create precisely the opposite effect.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: The answer to that is definitely, No. We want to encourage these people to see our countryside and to enjoy their stay at an hotel here, but we want to do more than that. We also want to point out that we are prepared to treat our bus drivers and other workers decently, and this is one of the ways by which we are going to do that.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I just say to my noble friend Lord Wakefield
1140
of Kendal, that if my drafting is correct my next Amendment covers this point. I have a certain sympathy with the Government over their general thesis. I think this is a marginal point, but I feel that it makes a big difference if people are away from home. Therefore, in some ways I may be disappointed if my noble friend presses this Amendment to a Division, because it would also mean that lorry drivers would not have to have a day's rest. There are definite dangers in lorry drivers working seven days a week, which do not arise in the case of drivers of public service vehicles.
BARONESS PLUMMER: May I ask noble Lords opposite what evidence they want in connection with this Amendment? Do they need more than the figures of accidents on the roads, due to tiredness on the part of drivers? May we know what they want?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Perhaps this is rather a facetious question, but how can the noble Lord be sure that during rest periods drivers do, in fact, rest? What is to stop them going to a dance hall or driving their own car a long way? There is no guarantee against that.
EARL FORTESCUE: We have been talking mainly about bus drivers, and we know that the modern bus can travel at 60 or 70 m.p.h. and not infrequently does, which must involve a considerable amount of fatigue for the driver. But, surely, fatigue is a matter of speed. Many noble Lords have no doubt bought a new car during the last few years which is limited to 40 m.p.h. and which is extremely irksome when one is in a hurry. Two years ago I bought a Mini, which I had to run in at 40 m.p.h. for 500 miles, so the first thing I did was to visit a friend in Cumberland. Most of the way up I was on a motorway, and I was going along very comfortably at 40 m.p.h. with the lorries which were also going along very comfortably at 40 m.p.h. I arrived at the other end without any sign whatever of fatigue. But on the way back I drove somebody else's car, and although I came back in about half the time I felt fatigued.
It is all a matter of speed, and in this connection I should like to remind your

1141
Lordships of an old friend of mine who used to drive a steamroller. He told me of one occasion when his boss, who I think was in Hertfordshire, sold the steamroller to some other organisation down in the West Country and he was given a week to take it down there. He said, "It was an absolute gift". He went eight miles an hour for 16 hours and did whatever it was—over 200, nearer 300 miles. He did not feel any fatigue; and he had the rest of the week for a holiday. Fatigue is all a matter of speed, and it is no good trying to lay down for everybody the maximum, which is only a permissive and not a compulsory maximum, which we have been talking about for bus drivers.
LORD STONHAM: I do not want to steamroller the discussion, but I would remind your Lordships that we have been over three hours on five Amendments. I do not think this is worthy of your Lordships' Committee. This is not a question of speed: it is a question of whether we are willing to permit lorry drivers, stage-carriage drivers and coach drivers to work for 365 days of the year. That is what this Amendment is about. The Government say that some of them ought to have one day off in seven, and bus drivers one day off in 14; that is all. That is what the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, wants to destroy, so that they could work for 365 days of the year. I do not think this is worth talking about. I do not think this is worthy of your Lordships' Committee, and I think we ought to be allowed to get on with the Bill.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Could the Minister answer the question which has been put by my noble friends Lord Eccles and Lord Wakefield of Kendal, by myself and by many others? It is a perfectly simple, straightforward question: is there or is them not power under this Bill to make a regulation exempting these 14-day and 10-day tours from this watertight provision?
LORD STONHAM: There is power under the Bill, under subsection (10), for the Minister, by regulation, to make special arrangements for certain classes of traffic, but I do not want that to be taken as an undertaking that he would necessarily make such a regulation with regard to the class of traffic we are
1142
talking about. But there is power if the Minister decided there was a good case for using it.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must apologise for leaving the Chamber for a minute to confer with one of my noble colleagues, although I heard most of the debate, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that there is a good deal of genuine concern among my noble friends, and he is not going to make progress by trying to knock us about like this. We have a responsibility here to try to get the right answer. Some of us—probably most of us—accept the Government's general case for shortening the hours of driving, but some of my noble friends are not convinced, and I am bound to say that the answers from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, have not been clear on this issue. I suggest that, at any rate when we come to Report stage, the noble Lord would help his case if he were to give the medical evidence, which I believe is there, which shows that fatigue does lead to slower reaction and is therefore a road safety factor. But I assure the noble Lord that my noble friends are really in earnest on this matter. They want to see the right answer here, and the practical answer.
I would advise my noble friend Lord Teviot not to press this Amendment; but, on the other hand, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will look a little less uncompromisingly at the possibility of the Minister regarding these tours as an exception to be dealt with under his powers in subsection (10). They are a special case, and it may be that satisfactory conditions can be defined which would enable the same driver to continue throughout the tour. If that can be done, it would be something which would please us all. So if the noble Lord would be good enough to look at it in that light, I would advise my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD TEVIOT: Is the Minister replying? I gather he is not. I am going to accept the advice of my noble friend Lord Nugent and withdraw this Amendment, but before I do so I should like to state that the reason why I put it forward was not to make these drivers work 365 days of the year necessarily, but to allow them to do so if they want to; that is all. We have had a very full

1143
debate, and I am thankful to noble Lords for all the points they have raised. We are now passing on to the Duke of Atholl's Amendment, which I think the Government could well consider. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.16 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 237ZA:
Page 127, line 34, leave out ("stage carriages") and insert ("public service vehicles").
The noble Duke said: In moving this Amendment I ought to declare a very small interest, in that, as some of your Lordships may know, my house is open to the public and a certain number of people who come to look round come in what my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal has so graphically described as "7 and 14-day tours". As the clause stands at the moment, these tours, as my noble friend has pointed out, would have to be altered. There are several reasons why this Amendment should be very carefully considered. First, it would still mean that the drivers of these vehicles would have to have one day in 14 as a rest day; therefore, even if they wanted to, they would not be able to work 365 days a year. Theoretically, they would be able to work only 339, if my arithmetic is right. Secondly, these tours are largely seasonal—I do not say entirely, but largely—and the drivers who work on them work, I agree, for long hours during the summer, and their week is a seven-day week; but during the winter they normally have a much easier time, so during the course of the year the number of rest days they have probably levels itself out.
Thirdly, these drivers would not be at home when their rest day would fall due. If you are on a 12-day tour of the Highlands and the Lake District and you have started from Birmingham, it is little help to you as driver of that tour if your rest day falls when you are at John o' Groats. A more ghastly place to have to spend the day, sitting in an hotel with a bus load of infuriated trippers who wish to go to see Dounrae, for instance, but who cannot do so because the driver is not allowed to drive the bus under the provisions of this subsection of the Bill, I cannot imagine. Fourthly, with the exception of one or two stages these
1144
drivers do not normally have great distances to cover. They start from one place and may go 20 miles to their first port of call, where they may wait for a couple of hours. They may then go another 20 miles to somewhere else, where they may wait for another two hours. On the whole, once they reach the Highlands of Scotland they do not go great distances in any one day.
I should have thought that in the interests of the tourist trade, which we know the Government want to encourage, and in the interests of the drivers themselves, this would have been an easy and simple Amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom (if it is he who is to reply), says that I have drawn my Amendment too widely because I would also let in such things as express coaches, I would agree that that is probably true and I should be quite prepared to try to re-draft it at another stage of the Bill so that it covered only these 12-day tours.
Finally, as to the 14-day tours, I do not think it would be a disaster if they had to be cut down to 13 days. I think that is perfectly reasonable; for the driver will go back home and will be able to enjoy his day of rest and leisure with his family. As far as the 10-day tour and the 12-day tour are concerned, it is going to be impracticable for drivers to have a day when no one can move because it is the driver's rest day. With regard to the 7-day tour, I think it is a bit hard when from a mere week on tour, one day is lopped off. It is 14 per cent. of the holiday. I should have thought that provision might be made for the driver to take his rest day on the eighth day rather than the seventh.
This Amendment has every advantage and, so far as I can see, no disadvantages. The stage carriage drivers are exempt already from having a rest day every seventh day; they have one every fourteenth day. I think both the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord McLeavy, implied, though they did not say it, that they consider that driving a stage coach in a town is a more fatiguing job than driving a long-distance coach on less crowded roads in rural areas. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: It was a pleasure to listen to the noble Duke moving his

1145
Amendment. He is quite right; he has drawn it too widely. His Amendment would mean that the drivers of public service vehicles of every kind, and not merely the drivers of stage carriages, would have to take one day a fortnight instead of one day a week. Paragraph (b) was inserted at the Report stage in the Commons and was a concession so that stage bus drivers need be obliged to have only one day off in a fortnight. That was a temporary measure by reason of the fact that there is a shortage and that many of these drivers are already working their seventh day. Therefore the Minister accepted the case so that we should not immediately create acute difficulties.
But so far as the express and contract side of the bus industry is concerned—the excursions and private party coaches —the case for retaining in the Bill the ruling about one day off in seven is a strong one. The noble Duke spoke about looking at his Amendment again and possibly drawing it narrower. I should be interested to see that; for one or two thing; that he has said, such as when rest days might be taken, seemed to me to be reasonable possibilities. Without any kind of commitment I should like my right honourable friend to look at some of the suggestions he made. But in drawing his Amendment narrowly I hope he will not say that every coach driver must take one day off in seven except during the period when he is calling at Blair Atholl. That would be rather too narrow.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I can assure the noble Lord that that particular thought had not struck me until he mentioned it; but I think it is a very good idea.
LORD STONHAM: I am always willing to be helpful; but I prefaced that suggestion with the remark that it would scarcely be acceptable. The noble Duke recognises that his Amendment is too wide and is unacceptable. I should like him to look at it again meanwhile I will look at some of the suggestions he has made.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for that reply. My intention is to limit it to touring coaches and to put down an
1146
Amendment on those lines at Report stage. If the Minister decides that he can accept it, I shall be grateful if he can give me some assistance in drafting it or if, perhaps, he himself would put down an Amendment. As he ha3 said, we do not have the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 127. line 34, leave out from ("if") to end of line 38 and insert ("that week is immediately preceded by a week in the case of which those requirements have been satisfied as respects that driver or during which he has not at any time been on duty.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended merely to correct and simplify subsection (6)(b) which ha.5 been the subject of so much debate in the last two or three Amendments. I should be grateful if the Committee would bear with me while I explain why these improvements are necessary. When the Bill was introduced in the Commons it imposed a requirement of one 24-hour period off-duty in each working week for all drivers. When the Minister announced in Committee in the Commons that the introduction of Part VI would be partly phased, one of the concessions h: decided to make for the "first stage" was that, since "rest day" (seventh day) working is prevalent in the bus industry, the 24-hour period off duty would be compulsory only once a fortnight for stage bus drivers. Paragraph (b) was intended to effect this, and was added as part of a new subsection, now subsection (6), which was introduced at Report stage. On looking at the wording subsequently it seemed that it is unnecessarily complicated; it unnecessarily adds to the difficulties in planning driving rotas; and it can be read as allowing a sequence of working weeks in which a day off is taken only every third week instead of at the most every fortnight. The Amendment makes the requirements applicable to stage bus drivers much simpler to understand and much simpler to operate and enforce; and it avoid; the unintended effect of creating uncertainty.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for explaining this Amendment. I think we must take him

1147
at his word. The draftsmen's efforts to simplify are seldom helpful to the layman and it may well become more complicated. His intention is obviously right and we are happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 237AZ:
Page 127, line 44, leave out ("four") and insert ("five and a half").
The noble Lord said: I hope our business may be speeded up somewhat by my moving an Amendment which the Government may accept. In considering this Amendment I would ask the Cornmitee to have regard to Clause 95(2)(a) and (b), where it is clearly stated that whoever the driver is and whatever the vehicle he is driving, a period of 5½ hours may go by before the rules of drivers' hours take effect. Clause 95(7) lays down that if a driver in each period of 24 hours during a week does not drive for more than a total of 4 hours each day, the drivers' rules shall not apply. This is based on the thinking of Appendix 2 subsection (3) of the White Paper (Command 3470) which referred to exemptions for those driving
"as an ancillary activity to some other main occupation."
If this exemption were to be raised to 5½ hours which, after all, is the first period of time in which any restriction under this Part of the Bill occurs, many anomalies and cases which have no connection at all with road safety could be avoided. That is the aim of the Amendment.
May I weary your Lordships for one minute with an example? I do not think that this line of thought has been put forward either here or in another place. Let us suppose that a farm foreman makes a trip into town to take, and afterwards to collect, some machinery which is in need of repair, and his total driving time exceeds four hours. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, if the spread-over provisions in the total working week apply to all this man's work? It may be that the man will want to go off and earn good money sugar beet hoeing, for instance, on piece work. If he works in excess of four hours at the wheel and that makes him liable to the drivers' hours provisions for his general work, he would be hampered, though his other
1148
work might have no connection with the road at all.
The spread-over and total working week provisions will seriously affect such people as farm managers and vets, and particularly the agricultural fitters, who were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on Tuesday evening, although—and this is the vital point —comparatively little of their time, on some occasions anyway, is spent actually driving. I assume that once again the noble Lord will say that some cases may be dealt with by regulations under the well-worn subject of subsection (10), cases of emergency and special need. I do not think that need come in, and it might clear our minds if we kept that provision out of the discussion on this Amendment.
I regret that the examples I have given are mainly connected with agriculture. Many noble Lords with experience in industry could probably give other examples, and perhaps in particular regarding the movement of mobile construction equipment. In this connection I would refer specifically to equipment which proceeds to and from the site of its operations, and probably never forsakes the building site as its base, but whose driver will be subject to all the provisions of drivers' hours if once he exceeds four hours at the wheel. If 5+ hours continuous driving may be completed before there is any check to the hours at the wheel, as is in the Bill, I cannot see why only four hours may be covered before the Clause 95 provisions generally are to be complied with. This subsection (7) is a new form of exemption. I do not believe that it was embodied in the 1960 Act. It may be that the Government have an open mind on this matter; at any rate let us hope that the noble Lord is open to persuasion.
6.32 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: As die noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made clear, the effect of this Amendment would be virtually to exclude from all the driving hours restrictions in the Bill any driver who did not drive for periods amounting to more than 51 hours in any day of his working week, instead of exempting only those who do not drive for more than four hours a day, as the Bill proposes. At present the limit is set at four hours and

1149
the concession is provided to enable a person who, on his working day, regularly does less driving than other work—I would emphasise that "driving" means actually at the controls of the vehicle—to escape the restrictions in Clause 95 on the length of that day and his working week.
On Tuesday we had a discussion about this actual driving time and the question of delivery people was raised—milkmen, for example. I must emphasise the importance of this for tradesmen who have to make local deliveries but spend more time in their trade or on foot making deliveries than in control of a vehicle. A plumber or electrician, who has to take tools and equipment to and from each assignment, would not be subject to the hours' rule if on no day in any given week did his actual driving exceed four hours. I have never, for example, timed a milk roundsman to ascertain the proportion of his time that he spends driving. Certainly I would say that one who makes frequent deliveries in a road spends less than one-third of his working day actually driving, and would be right outwith these restrictions. A plumber or electrician who takes tools to a job would be outside these regulations. The four hours working time out of a normal working day (I am not talking about a 10-hour or a 9-hour working day at the moment, but four hours out of a normal working day) have to be spent actually at the wheel driving, and those people who, on any given day in the working week, do not work more than that four hours, are thereby outside the controls. This is quite a wide provision.
The noble Lord asked a question about the farm foreman and envisaged his going into a town with a machine, or something of that kind, and spending more than four hours at the wheel. He asked whether that would make the man liable to the restrictions on the total working hours. The answer is, "Yes". If he spent more than four hours driving in any one day of the week he would be caught by the hours' provisions. I know that this is a hypothetical case, but most farm workers driving to town with a machine would be driving from the farm to the nearest large town. I would assume that that would be so, they would not want to go on an unnecessarily long journey. They would go to the nearest town
1150
where the machine could be serviced, or whatever had to be done to it. It is a bit far-fetched to assume that such men would be driving for more than four hours in a particular day which would mean they would be driving for something over 60 miles each way. There are few farms which have not service arrangements within a shorter radius tan 60 miles.
If we extended it, as the noble Lord proposes, to persons who drive up to 5½ hours in any day, it would more than halve the proposed new daily maximum of 10 hours, and certainly it would be considerably more when we come to the later maximum of 9 hours driving. It would be exactly half of the total permitted hours on duty on any work including non-driving time. It would, as it were, reverse the present emphasis and it would exempt from the hours rule many persons who spend more time actually driving than doing other work. I think that is indisputable. In fact, to raise the figure to 5½ hours would, in my view, exclude the great majority of people who normally drive for a substantial part of their working life.
I am talking now only about time at the wheel. If you imagine all the other jobs which even a driver does and which is not work at the wheel, you will realise how soon the hours are reduced and how much it reduces the hours spent driving. So far as the workers themselves ate concerned, the unions think that we have gone much too far and have been much too flexibile in giving the 4 hours exemption. They make the objection that the concession will allow part-time drivers to take out vehicles on short coach excursions in the evenings, after a normal day's work in some other occupation Although it will be another occupation, there will be no safeguard against them suffering from fatigue and thereby adding to the dangers to public safety. To increase this to 51 hours would exacerbate the situation. For these reasons I am afraid that I cannot fulfil the noble Lord's hope that I might accept this Amendment.
6.40 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I wonder if I could put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, before my noble friend replies to him. This is another attempt to deal with the problem of

1151
mixed work, where a man is employed partly for driving and partly on some other job. We discussed this at length last Tuesday, when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, answered the debate. The terms of our Amendment then were to exclude the 30-cwt. vehicle, which so often plays a dual purpose role, and at the end of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, acknowledged that there was a point worth looking at and that we would have consultations about it before Report stage.
The 4 hours granted here do help the situation but we think it does not go far enough. The noble Lord said that it would be unusual if a farm foreman had to do more than a 60-mile journey; and that is right. But occasionally he does have a longer journey. He might have to take cattle to another farm which is more than two hours' journey away and cattle trucks go slowly. Then for the rest of the day he would be caught by the regulations. I can think of many cases where 4 hours would not be enough to meet the problem of mixed work.
I must recognise that the noble Lord made a strong point when he said that 51 hours is as much as many professional drivers do. Maybe this Amendment goes too far. Maybe we have not the right balance here. I was going to suggest that when the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Beswick, are looking at this problem of mixed work, perhaps they could also look at this, because one of the ways of meeting this problem might be by extending this a little further. Maybe this will do or maybe not, but there is a problem here that needs looking at. I hope that my noble friend Lord Belstead will feel that this is the way we should leave it.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I can see both sides of this argument only too easily. May I suggest that perhaps there could be some geographical exemption? Although the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is right that it is unlikely one would need to drive more than 4 hours in England, we must not forget that in the North of Scotland there are many places more than two hours' driving from Inverness. I can assure the noble Lord of that. If
1152
there could be an exemption for the North of Scotland, I think that it would be very useful.
LORD BELSTEAD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his full reply to what seems to be a small point but which is in fact a point of some importance. The noble Lord referred to the unions and to the fact that under this exemption a man, after a hard day's work, can go driving up to 4 hours and be entirely exempt It would be extremely churlish of me not to concede immediately that the noble Lord, out of his experience, has touched on a very serious point, which was debated at length in another place, a point which was referred to by one honourable gentleman as "moonlighting" when it takes place to a considerable extent at night. This is something which must exercise everybody's mind.
Having said that, I must say that I am disappointed that the noble Lord could not come some way to meet us. I wonder where the 4 hours come from? Were they plucked out of the air by the Government? I would put this point to the noble Lord. As soon as a driver goes over the line, whether it be 4 hours or 51, then he will become subject to drivers' hours. I have already conceded the noble Lord's point about somebody who goes off driving illegally for 4 hours and if by some magic a person who is to be exempted for 5½ hours can go off and drive illegal hours over the whole week, then this Amendment would not have been moved.
The noble Lord referred to the farm foreman whom I used as an example. A certain amount of trouble is being stored up over this and it is something that is going to come up again. But I think that we have given this a good airing and with your Lordships' permission, I would withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 237AA:
Page 128, line 15, leave out ("elsewhere than on a road if the vehicle is being so driven").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment refers to subsection (9), which provides that the regulations in subsections

1153
(1) to (7) shall not be taken into account in the course of operations of agriculture
"elsewhere than on a road if the vehicle is being so driven."
I am moving that these words be taken out as I do not see the point of them. By definition the driver of the vehicle is engaged in an agricultural operation. He cannot do that on the road. He has to go off the road to do it, and his use of the road is merely essential for getting from one point to another. How is it intended to work this provision? Is the farmer supposed to have a stop watch and time exactly the minutes spent in going from one field to another on the road? Does it mean that when he is in a field none of tie regulations apply, but when he goes on the road he has to have a complete note because all the rules about days worked, time off and days off during the week and so on then apply? Does this not cause more trouble than it is really worth, and would it not be better to take these words out of the Bill? I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Earl is aware, we are anxious to be helpful to agriculture wherever possible, but I feel that the noble Earl's Amendment is not helpful. Its effect would be to free completely persons who drive in the course of an operation of agriculture from any restrictions on driving imposed by subsection (1). If this Amendment were made, no account would be taken of the time during which a vehicle is driven whether on or off the road. It would also free persons driving in the course of an operation of agriculture from the provisions of subsections (2) to (6) relating to hours of work in the day and week, rest periods and days off, if they do not drive vehicles otherwise than in the course of the operations of agriculture for periods not exceeding 4 hours in any one day.
I am sure that the noble Earl has not considered the implications of this Amendment. At least, I hope he has not, because I hope that that is not his intention. It is our policy in this Bill to help the agricultural industry, but this would go far beyond the concessions we propose in subsection (9) and the concessions that exist under the present law —that is, Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, where driving otherwise than
1154
on the road is not deemed as driving for the purposes of the limits on hours imposed by that section. That is the existing law, and here we are not doing much more than to re-enact it. Sub section (9) of Clause 95 maintains the present concession in more or less the sane form for agricultural drivers. We cannot agree to extend it so that driving in the course of operations of agriculture on roads—that is, on highways and other roads to which the public have access—may also be ignored. Many of the vehicles so driven will be large goods vehicle s, and their drivers will be subject to fatigue in just the same way as drivers of other large goods vehicles. The general restrictions on driving must therefore be applied.
The noble Earl made the point: How will anyone know? That is a fair point, which can be answered: How do we know now?—because, as I say, we are really re-enacting the present law and not imposing any new restrictions. I am sure that in this respect the noble Earl is satisfied with the present law which was passed in 1960. In those circumstances, I hope that he will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will not press the noble Lord. I will only say that I hope he will show his desire to benefit agriculture in a very positive: way on some of the future Amendments. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 237C:
Page 128, line 16, leave out ("operaticns of agriculture") and insert ("agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations").
The noble Duke said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I move and then my next Amend noble Lord, that "agric ture", so fa concerned, the word "
LORD ST
THE DU circumstanc
Amendment, and we can have a debate on Amendment No. 238.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.53 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 128, line 16, at end insert (", forestry or construction")
The noble Lord said: There is general appreciation that the exemption contained in subsection (9), to which my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has referred, and which involves agriculture, is, under the Agriculture Act 1947, an inclusion of horticulture and livestock breeding. I am a little puzzled that the exemption of this subsection is from subsections (1) and (7) of Clause 95. I wonder whether the noble Lord opposite could confirm whether this is a cross reference giving agricultural vehicles off the road complete exemption from drivers' hours.
Assuming for the moment that it is so, this exemption in subsection (9) was referred to in general debate in another place where it would seem that the thinking behind the exemption was two-fold. First, the effect of weather conditions on agriculture sometimes calls for very long hours; secondly, although driving a machine off the road is tiring it does not have quite the same dangerous effect as driving for a similar time on the road. I think it is fair to say that we on this side of the Committee believe that forestry and construction work satisfies these two criteria, and this Amendment seeks to include them in subsection (9). My noble friend the Duke of Atholl will, I hope, rise again in a moment to deal with the claims of forestry, which he can do far better than I can.
Apart from the two criteria mentioned, I should have thought that an important factor here was that many people engaged in forestry must have longish journeys over deserted roads to and from their work sites, and inclusion of hours spent in the depths of a forest from time to time would put such people in a difficult position. Driving off the road on a construction site is not, I submit, tiring the same way as driving on a road. sort of operations that this Amend would cover would be lorries hovelling of earth, and simply from one point to another rather than driving, a.
1156
man really is operating a machine which involves very little movement. I think it is fair to say that here again we on this side of the Committee (perhaps it cannot be said too many times) are not by this Amendment going to try to involve people engaged in forestry and construction in immensely long hours, but we do bear in mind that somebody can come walking out of a factory at the end of a long day, get into his car and, if he wants to, drive all night.
Unless the proposed tachographs, when introduced, are to record only engine revs., not connected to any ancillary equipment, such as a mobile crane or a cement-mixer, there will be a grave problem here on construction sites—and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has an Amendment down on this quite shortly. If this situation is an uncertain one at the moment, surely that is another factor supporting the need to exempt the construction industry, which widely uses equipment built on to carrying tackle, provided, of course, that the Amendment relates only to operations off the road. I hope that the Government will be able to give this Amendment serious consideration. It would be important for productivity, and it only seeks to follow the Government's thinking as set out in subsection (9).
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to support my noble friend, particularly with regard to forestry. I am afraid that I know little about the construction industry and their problems, and I fully accept his statement that that industry would be greatly hampered by the provisions of the Bill as it stands at the moment. I think it is obvious that in forestry the drivers' hours provisions will be extremely difficult to obey unless some form of exemption is given to the forestry industry.
The planting season is a very short one anywhere, and it is often made shorter by the weather. For instance, you cannot plant when there is frost; so during the planting season you want to make use of every available hour of daylight. I might say, too, that you have to stop planting once the sap starts rising. Nor can planting take place in the height of the summer: it can be done only when the hours of daylight are not too long. When you are planting, there

1157
is normally someone driving a tractor, which goes rather slowly alongside, with all the plants on the trailer of the tractor. I do not think this is in any way a fatiguing job. He does not cover much ground during the course of a day. He hardly drives at all on a public road. Maybe he drives on the public road getting to his place of work and going home in the evening, although in many cases this does not happen, because he leaves the tractor ready for himself to come to the next day and gets there and back by bicycle or in a car driven by the foreman.
It is going to make it very difficult for the forestry industry if these sort of operations are curtailed to ten hours a day when we get a suitable day and suitable weather for doing them. Further (I am not sure whether this is covered or not) in felling operations, in most cases you obviously want to use your winch gear throughout a fairly long day. I cannot see that this gives rise to any great danger or fatigue, because in fact the tractor doing the winching is probably stationary for much of the day—not for all the day, for it obviously moves from place to place to do its winching, but for much of the day. I should have thought that this was another case where forestry could easily be exempted from these provisions without adding any danger to anyone.
I support my noble friend very strongly in saying that forestry should be included in this exemption. I personally feel that legislation would be much easier if forestry were always treated as being part of agriculture. They are related. A man is used to growing crops on a yearly cycle in agriculture, and is used to growing crops on a 30-yearly to 80-yearly cycle in forestry, but the idea is basically the same, and I feel that any difference between forestry and agriculture ought to be carefully analysed and the reasons for it given with great care. So I support my noble friend strongly so far as forestry is concerned.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Having satisfied noble Lords opposite that the concession so far as agriculture is concerned also applies to horticulture, I am afraid that I cannot go any further to meet them to-night. Forestry, as we all know, has hitherto enjoyed the same
1158
concessions as agriculture has under the 1960 Act, but is not now give n any concession. This is because it is less subject than agriculture is to the restraints of weather at harvest. In such circumstances the safety advantages of shorter hours should prevail—
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Could the noble Lord please explain why forestry is less subject to weather conditions than is agriculture? I tried to point out that in many ways it is just as subject to weather conditions. It seems to me that this is very much a fallacious argument.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Briefly, what I am trying to say is that forestry is not subject to the same sort of conditions as is harvesting corn in the fields. I agree that the trees in the forest have to be harvested at times, but there is not the same hurry to harvest them as there is to harvest, for example, corn from the farms. That is what I am briefly trying to say.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I must disagree with the noble Lord here. I agree that harvesting operations can sometimes be spread, although when you have a windblow such as we have had in Scotland recently they cannot be spread over more than 18 months, and this gives rise to great problems if you cannot work for long hours during that 18 months. Wind-blows are always occurring. They are not usually as bad as the one we had on January 15 this year, but there are always windblows. So I cannot se e that that is really a good case for an emergency exception under subsection (10). The planting season is short enough anyway. The Government's policy, they say, is that we should plant more and more forests in Scotland. The Prime Minister announced not so long ago that he hoped we should plan (I think I am right in saying this; I am speaking from memory) 50,000 acres a year. If we are going to do that, it is a short season. We must be able to make use of all the suitable weather—and planting is very dependent on the weather. I d3 not know whether the noble Lord would like to go planting trees on a frosty day, but I can assure him that it is almost impossible to do it.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I agree with the noble Duke that one can always find anomalies. I would not claim to

1159
have nearly as much forestry experience as the noble Duke has, but I live in a forestry area in East Anglia; for a good long time I was a member of the English National Forestry Committee, and I have some experience of it. I am not saying that I should like to go felling trees or, what is worse, lugging them out of the forest, but, generally speaking, I think the noble Duke will agree with me that forestry and agriculture and horticulture are not always comparable.
So far as building site and other construction work is concerned, this, like agriculture, is subject to some extent to the vagaries of the weather. But there is no concession in the 1960 Act and the Government see no substantial reason for giving a concession now. If, however, overwhelming reasons are brought forward in support of concessions for either or both of these industries, it would be possible to bring these about either by an order under Clause 95(12), which would probably take the form of adding the industry concerned to agriculture in subsection (9), as proposed in this Amendment, or by regulations under subsection (10) of the clause, which enables specific concessions to be made to meet any special need. It is therefore unnecessary for a concession to be made in the Bill itself, and I must inform the noble Duke and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who moved this Amendment, that I must ask the Committee to reject it.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. I think it is a most preposterous suggestion that there is any fundamental difference between agriculture and forestry. There is a much wider difference between different sections of agriculture than there is between growing crops in farming and growing crops which are called forestry. The only fundamental difference, if you can call it a fundamental difference, between the growing of crops in agriculture and in forestry is a time difference. You normally get an agricultural crop a year or 18 months after sowing, whereas in forestry the period is measured in years, but that is the only fundamental difference between the two. It is utterly absurd to try to make a legal difference or to suggest that there is any other fundamental difference. There is a much greater dif
1160
ference between livestock husbandry and other branches of agriculture than there is between agriculture and forestry. To try to draw a line in respect of the implements—which can be the same, and often are the same—used in agriculture and in forestry is utterly and palpably absurd.
LORD FORBES: I do not think the Government realise that in the North of Scotland you try to plant trees in the time between when the frost goes out of the ground and when the sap begins to come into the trees. You cannot plant before the frost goes out of the ground; you cannot plant once the sap goes up into the young trees. That is a very, very short time, and if planting cannot go on as it does at present, if there is any restriction, the Government's planting programme cannot possibly be carried out.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Perhaps I can help the noble Duke in this. There have been a few fresh points made, and I said earlier that I agree with a good deal of what the noble Duke said. In view of the fresh points that have been made, I will give an assurance that I will look into the question of forestry, especially the planting side.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I just make a point of logic? The whole basis of Part VI is safety, and this is off the road. We see this in Clause 94. These are all operations off the road.
LORD BELSTEAD: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, has given us the benefit of his considerable time on this Amendment and has said that he will look at forestry. Now all we have to do is to ask him to look at the construction industry. Let me put a point to the noble Lord. Suppose one has an hour to drive to a construction site, which I think is possibly not unusual. I am advised—and the figures have been worked out—that a man who has to do this will now be reduced to 45 hours per week. May I quickly say, not hours per week, which I should like to see somebody working week in week out, but hours which I think many noble Lords on both sides of the Committee will agree may be very necessary in a particular emergency. The hours which have been worked out would be 45 hours of work, 12 hours for the journeys and three

1161
hours statutory meal breaks, which equals 60 hours.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, a second question. Will vehicles on construction sites be fitted with tachographs? If they are not fitted with tachographs, how on earth are construction sites and people working on them going to be brought into the scope of this Bill? Let us assume that somebody does what I suggested when I moved this Amendment—drives to a construction site and then spends time on the construction site, involving himself in drivers' hours, even though he is only tipping and shovelling. If he does not have a tachograph on his vehicle he can come (if I may use the expression) sailing off the construction site without anybody being the wiser and go off and drive to his heart's content.
Finally, I have some figures which I think make sobering reading. A pipeline contract was locked at, and it was worked out that the bill would increase by 31 to 3 per cent., and in the memorandum it was pointed out by the people putting in the pipeline that the actual increase in labour costs would be a great deal higher than that. The people concerned worked it out that they could get the figures down to this level. We are not talking about something academic. We are not moving this Amendment for fun, and I do not accept the assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, that he will look into the question of forestry because it is something in which Members of this House are deeply interested, and then we can get on with the next business. I do not accept that, and I ask the noble Lord to give me an assurance in regard to the construction industry as well.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I was pleased to give the noble Duke an assurance in regard to forestry, because there is a very real connection. But I do not think anybody in this Committee, other than the noble Lord, Lord Beistead, can believe that there is any sort of connection between agriculture and the construction industry.
LORD BELSTEAD: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I find it entirely unacceptable, and I think we shall have to look at this matter again. In the meantime, with your Lordships' permis
1162
sion I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 128, line 17, leave out from ("enabling") to ("cases") in line 18 and insert "drivers to deal with".
The noble Lord said: This is largely a drafting Amendment, which is necessary to ensure that the scope of the Minister's exempting powers is not unintentionally restricted. It will enable the Minister to make regulations creating exemptions from all or any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (6) of Clause 95 or for empowering the traffic commissioners or licensing authority for any traffic area to dispense with the observance of any or all of those requirements.
As at present worded in the Bill, the Minister's powers to make regulations are inadvertently too restrictive, being limited to the purpose of enabling vehicles to which Part VI applies to be used otherwise than as prescribed in subsections (1) to (6) of the clause, in cases of emergency or otherwise to meet a special need. Some of the provisions 3f subsections (1) to (6) relate, however, to matters other than the use of vehicles. For example, subsection (3) prescribes the maximum permissible length of a driver's working day. The working day will embrace all work other than driving which a driver may do for his err, ployer, even work unconnected with a vehicle or its load.
In particular circumstances it may be necessary to grant a dispensation, retrospectively if need be, under subsection (10)(b) to allow a driver to d3 work of this kind in an emergency, or to meet a special need, after the expiry of his permitted hours of work. For e) ample, a farmer, after having driven for the maximum number of hours permitted under subsection (3), might on return to his farm find that he must work beyond the permitted limit to attend to the needs of a sick animal. Because of the limit on his working day, and because as at present drafted subsection (10) of the clause enables the licensing authority to dispense with the observance of the normal requirements under regulations

1163
only for the purpose of enabling vehicles to be used in cases of emergency or otherwise to meet a special need, an offence would inevitably be committed if the driver did what any normal person would do and attended to the needs of the sick animal. Since, whatever the law says, no one is going to stop work in such circumstances, this must be recognised in legislation or the law will be brought into disrepute. This Amendment, belated but very necessary, avoids that disaster. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 239Z:
Page 128, line 18, after ("emergency") insert ("severe weather conditions").
The noble Earl said: I put this Amendment down in order to try to ascertain from the Government what is intended by this subsection. From what has already been said I gather it means anything that the Minister wishes it to mean. If that is the correct interpretation I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Earl is quite right, his Amendment is unnecessary. I assume that he is taking with it Amendment No. 239A. I beg the noble Earl's pardon, I see that is by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, which is on the same point but is equally unnecessary. I hope I may be allowed to speak to both Amendments, which will save quite five minutes.
Whether or not the Minister will be prepared to use his powers under this subsection, or under subsection (12) which in some cases may be more appropriate, will depend on the merits of each case. Perhaps I may quote the words of my right honourable friend in another place. He said:
"We have a degree of flexibility in the,power to make exemptions. One would assume that those exemptions would be made in the light of experience, but there is no point in using those exemption procedures to an extent which would make nonsense of the whole legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 29/5/68, col. 1952.]
This is the theme which I have been following all the afternoon, and it was really exemplified by the last Amendment. Certainly we shall move sensibly
1164
with regard to the requirements of certain industries and seasonal conditions, and that will include severe weather conditions.
I gave part of the answer on Tuesday night, when I was replying to the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, and I can assure the noble Earl that the Minister could make exceptions to the normal limits of driving time and drivers' hours on duty during periods when weather conditions are such that journeys consistently take much longer than usual. For example, as the noble Duke will be aware, in Scotland in winter, when the roads are snowbound for months on end, fatigue among drivers in such conditions must be expected to be greater than normal. This might be an argument against allowing longer driving and working periods when the weather is bad.
In certain conditions, and particularly bad weather conditions, Clause 95(10) as it stands is drafted in sufficiently wide terms to enable this to be done. I would also mention—because I cannot remember that it has been mentioned at all in any of the many debates—that it is an important part of this clause that subsection (11) provides a defence against contravention of the rules in cases where it can be shown that such contravention was due to unavoidable delay in the completion of a journey, arising out of circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen. In such circumstances no one will be daft enough to take any notice of it at all. The job will have to be done. But in general in answer to the noble Earl's point, and I hope also to Lord Merrivale's point, I can give them the assurance that the Bill provides for everything that they require.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.20 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 239A:
Page 128, line 19, after ("need") insert ("including the requirements of certain industries and seasonal conditions").
The noble Lord said: May I briefly ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, one point? He said that the Bill as drafted gives everything that I seek to achieve by my Amendment. But paragraph 4 of

1165
Appendix 2 of the White Paper, The Transport of Freight, says:
"A new and much-needed flexibility will be built in to the law by allowing the Minister of Transport to make suitable arrangements for those drivers whose job involves emergency work "—
which the noble Lord was talking about—
"to be excused from those parts of the rules which might otherwise make it impossible for such services to be provided."
But it does not say that this applies to industries with particular needs or requirements or affected by seasonal matters.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will carefully read certainly the first part of subsection (10), I think he will be satisfied that it does give the Minister power to make regulations providing exceptions for industries.
LORD MERRIVALE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 239B:
Page 129, line 26. after ("of") insert ("the users of transport,").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with subsection (12) which can have quite considerable effects on subsections (1) to (9) of Clause 95. Before making these regulations the Minister is bound to consult with representatives of employees and employers. I am suggesting that he should also consult with representatives of the users of transport, who are more important than employees or employers. I brought this in because it occurred to me in the Amendment which I moved earlier that before this Bill was drawn up there had been no consultation with the people for whom I was speaking. I think it is right to provide that users of transport should be consulted wherever possible. If the Amendment does not find favour in the eyes of the Government they can negative it, but I am not going to withdraw it.
LORD STONHAM: I think it was a little premature for the noble Earl, even before hearing my reply, to say that he was not going to withdraw the Amendment, because I assure him at once that I agree with this. The Amendment raises an important principle with which the Government are in entire agreement.
1166
We are absolutely convinced that before changes are made in such important matters as the limiting of drivers' hours and means of enforcement there must be proper consultation with the interests concerned, both on the side of tie providers of transport, and their employees, and on the side of the users of transport, which is exactly the word used by the noble Earl. I should like to think this has always been the practice. It will certainly be the practice white we have anything to do with it.
Under Section 260(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 the Minister is required, before making any regulations, to
"consult with such representative organisations as he…thinks fit".
The Minister believes that this hind of requirement to consult is more appropriate than the present requirement in subsection (12) of the Bill, either as it is, or as amended by Lord Selkirk's Amendment, and that the new requirement should be applied to the whole of Part VI. It is an unintended omission from this Part of the Bill, that the Minister could, by regulation, make extensive alterations to the drivers hours rules under Clause 95(10) and introduce measures concerning tachographs (Clause 95) and written records (Clause 97) without at any obligation to consult. Not that he ever intended to take such a tours,—but there is at present no statutory requirement in this Part of the Bill.
The purpose of consultation is to enable the Minister to find out whether any proposals he may make are likely to be workable in practice; whethe.7 they are sufficient to achieve whatever aims he might have in mind and whether they create particular problems for any group of persons affected by them. This does not mean he must consult everybody on every occasion. For practical reasons, detailed consultations must generally be limited to the "top hamper" of al sociations—the "associations of associations" such as the C.B.I., the T.U.C., the R.H.A., the Transport Users' Joint Committee and the Traders' Road Transport Association. Many other representative bodies may be affected by the proposed changes. Sometimes it will be right to invite them to discuss the changes in detail; sometimes they will just be informed about what is afoot and left to comment if they wish; on other occasions it will be

1167
reasonable to leave it to the major national associations already mentioned, to obtain the views of their affiliated members.
To give a concrete example if the Minister wished to make an order under Clause 95(12) reducing the hours of driving per day from 10 to 9, it would obviously affect everyone in the country to some degree, but detailed consultation would probably be limited to the major associations—though many others would be notified and would be free to express a view. If, on the other hand, the Minister proposed to alter the hours only for, say, drivers carrying timber it would be right for him to consult forestry and timber interests directly as well as the national associations already mentioned.
The Minister believes, therefore, that the public interest is best served by imposing a requirement to consult, but leaving him discretion to consult such representative organisations (including user organisations) as he thinks fit. This arrangement has worked well in the past and there is no reason, as the noble Earl as a former Minister is well aware, to suspect that it will not do so in the future. Where failures have occurred, they have always been failures in administration. It would not have made a ha'p'orth of difference whatever had been laid down in the Bill.
I suggest therefore that the noble Earl might suspend his first intention and withdraw his Amendment on the undertaking that I give him, that the Government will themselves table Amendments on Report which will, first, remove any reference to an obligation to consult in Clause 95(12) but, second, include in Clause 100 an obligation on the Minister to consult "such representative organisations as he thinks fit" before making any order or regulations under Part VI of the Bill. I was quoting the actual words we would propose to insert in Clause 100. I hope that on that understanding, since he has achieved his purpose, but perhaps in a better way because it is more embracing than his present Amendment, the noble Earl will feel it right to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure he will appreciate that he has had to
1168
say "No" to your Lordships fairly often, and sometimes his "Noes" are not wholly convincing. I am most grateful to him for what he has said to-day. I think it is of help that users' organisations —and I should like him to put in the word "users" if he can—should have a right of channel to the Minister, perhaps through their senior organisation. I think this is of great value. In those circumstances, I am glad to go back on what I said, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.31 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 129, line 45, at end insert—
("Provided that the appointed day for the purposes of section 95 of this Act shall not precede the appointed day of section 96 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, and after the notable success of my noble friend Lord Selkirk with his last Amendment I am encouraged to think that I shall meet with an equally reasonable response by Lord Stonham. This is a small and simple point. The effect of the Amendment would be to require the Minister under the next clause, Clause 96, which deals with recording machines—tachographs, as they are called—to make regulations requiring the fitting of tachographs before he makes the regulations reducing drivers' hours.
Doubts have been expressed, I know, about the efficiency and reliability of these recording machines, but I observe that in another place the junior Minister explained in some detail how they work, that the Government believe that 95 per cent. accuracy is possible, and that in any event where regulations are made they will be made within the limits of accuracy of the machine. This is consistent with the line which the Minister has taken during the consultations with industry over the past year, that the fitting of tachographs was essential in order to ensure that the new and stricter regulations for drivers' hours were properly kept.
This was a point which was made several times in another place, and particularly by the Labour Members of Parliament who were experienced in transport. It is essential that these new regulations shall be observed by all, and not

1169
be made the opportunity for the "smart guys" to benefit at the expense of the law-abiding. The Government have already said in the White Paper The Transport of Freight that it is their intention that tachographs should be fitted, and I think it should be laid down in the Bill, in order to remove all doubt, that the Minister will make this order before he makes an order with regard to the shortening of hours. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, with sweet reason and all his guileless charm, is, nevertheless, powerful stuff. It is nothing less than saying to your Lordships that we cannot have Clause 95 effective, with the regulations on hours, until Clause 96 with the regulations on the fitting of tachographs becomes effective; and, of course, we cannot have them until there are enough tachographs, and that might be 18 months after the passing of the Bill. That is why I say this is powerful stuff. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, agrees with me because his Amendment is precisely similar, and his smile is as wide as a barn door. Nevertheless, I have to answer the Amendment on its merits; but I thought it just as well to point out the underlying factors here, and how important this Amendment is.
My right honourable friend the Minister has said that it is his intention, when this Bill becomes an Act, that Clause 95, the hours clause, will become operative so that the stage of reducing drivers' hours can operate from the spring of next year, some nine months or so hence; and we regard it as most important. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, quite properly urged the importance of these tachographs. Of course they are only part of the job of controlling drivers' hours. I do not accept the implication that it is pointless to reduce the hours if tachographs are not first fitted to make sure that drivers' hours are reduced in Practice. It might be argued, it might even be thought, if we accept that view, that the operators would be glad of this delay, because they could benefit from the tachographs in the way of better control over their drivers and in the management of their fleets, before being faced with any possible increased costs arising from the reduction of hours for their men. That, of course, would be a most unhappy arrangement, and one to
1170
which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would be the last to subscribe. We do not accept that the law cannot be enforced without tachographs. This is the important point. In any event, these tachographs only measure driving time. That is a most important point. It is time at the wheel.
Apart from limiting driving time, the rules that we have spent so long discussing impose new limits on the length of the working day, the length of the working week, hours and periods of days off. These will be controlled, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is aware, through drivers' written records, just as are the present rules which he himself helped to draft and push through Parliament. Clause 97 makes detailed provision for the keeping of the written records which are required for the purpose of enforcing the rules. For the reason that tachographs are merely an aid to enforcement, and not an indispensable one, the Amendment to defer the implementation of the clauses on drivers' hours until after all the vehicles are fitted with tachographs is surely quite untenable.
I would again remind your Lordships that the regulations relating to hours and to the working week and the working day which will be introduced by Clause 95, and which the Minister wants to be in operation by next spring, are reductions in hours for the purpose of improving public safety. Surely it would be unthinkable to delay such a safety measure until the tachographs are available to help in enforcement cases.
We have been enforcing the present rules—the driving hours, the driving week, the days off and so on—for nearly forty years without tachographs. Therefore, although tachographs would have been a useful aid in enforcing them in the last forty years, I cannot accept that because they are not now available in sufficient quantities for fitting to every vehicle that would need them, we must therefore postpone this vitally important matter of the reduction in hours until they are so ready. We hope that they will be ready in about 18 months, If they were ready now, this Amendment would be unnecessary and could not be moved, because the two would go forward together.

1171
Unfortunately, that is not so, but I hope that the noble Lord will agree—I feel he must agree himself; it must be his personal conviction—that these reductions in the number of hours, the length of the working week, the provision for days off and so on, are in the public interest as a whole, public safety in particular, and in the interests of the men also in particular, and should be brought into operation as soon as new schedules can be worked out and new arrangements made, which ought to be as early as possible next year. I hope the noble Lord will agree with that, and will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD TEVIOT: I should like to ask the Minister one question, that is, how has the industry, in respect of the unions and the operators, taken to the idea of tachographs? It seems to me—and I say this quite nicely—intolerable for a driver to have a snooper sitting alongside him and quite contrary to the British Constitution. I should like to know whether the rest of the world has such instruments.
LORD STONHAM: I would only say that many of these instruments are in use in many cases. This is not any revolution. Of course they are in use now, in firms which wish to be as efficient as possible and wish to use their labour as efficiently as they can. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that these matters have been discussed with the organisations on both sides, and certainly there is no objection from either side to Clause 96 which provides for tachographs.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his very careful and conciliatory answer. Although I am naturally not at all anxious to suggest that there should be a delay of 18 months before the new regulations should come into operation, I must press him on this. He will know that all consultations that took place with industry last year were on the basis that tachographs would be fitted before the new regulations were introduced, and the line that he is taking now, that tachographs will not be ready by next spring and therefore there must be a delay and the new regulations must be introduced without requiring the
1172
fitting of tachographs, is something quite new.
As we all well know, the extra productivity which it is so vital to get—and the Minister has stressed this again and again; and indeed the noble Lord has stressed it—and the shorter hours which the noble Lord wants, and indeed I want, will only be acceptable and successful if greater productivity can be achieved in regard to all the vehicles that this clause affects, particularly the freight vehicles. There is scope to get this productivity. However, we have the very cogent advice of the Prices and Incomes Board that the fitting of tachographs is one of the essential factors in order to get this extra productivity. In the light of that, it seems inconsistent for the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to recommend—and indeed to ask the House now to agree—this very important measure of reducing hours without doing something which we are told on the highest authority is essential if we are to achieve the extra productivity which is so essential.
I do not want to repeat arguments that we have had before about productivity, but the object is to maintain the earnings of the men engaged in this work, at the same time avoiding an increase of costs and also maintaining the efficiency of the transport operations. This is quite an undertaking, and the cogent advice here is that a tachograph is necessary. In the light of that, I really must press the noble Lord that, first of all, the line that is now being taken by the Government is not consistent with the line that was followed last year in consultations with industry; and, secondly, that this most cogent advice that the tachograph is an essential factor if we are to get the extra productivity on which the whole of this operation is based, as the Minister tells us, must be taken. I really must press the noble Lord that he should accept this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I assure the noble Lord that the Ministry of Transport have never discussed drivers' hours with the industry on the basis that tachographs would be introduced first. The only basis on which there has been discussion is that there would be provision for both in the Bill. Therefore, there has been no change at all. I must repeat, first

1173
of all, that the need to have tachographs is appreciated and fully understood, and that the Government are doing all they can to press ahead with the necessary arrangements. These are manufacturing problems; they are not political problems. Meanwhile, as the noble Lord knows, tachographs are already commercially available, and I believe there is no reason why many vehicles should not be equipped in advance of the dates that I mentioned. No doubt many of them will be equipped by next spring, in addition to those already so equipped.
The noble Lord has said that he really must press me on this Amendment. If he means he presses for acceptance of it, then I must tell him that it is quite impossible. I must impress on him the view, and I must ask him to acknowledge, that everything except tachographs with regard to hours is in operation now. The whole machinery of control is in operation now, and the only change under the Bill will he, with regard to drivers hours, a reduction in the permissible total working week, the permissible total working day, and the permissible total number of hours spent driving, although that meals actual driving all the time and not including other work as the case is now.
There is, therefore, no practical reason, any more than there has been any time in the last forty years when tachographs have not been fitted, why these regulations cannot be implemented as soon as there has been time—and I say it is about nine months—to make the different arrangements and draw up the necessary schedules. What the noble Lord says is that these are dependent on the economies that can be made through the
fitting of tachographs and, therefore, until those economies can be made it is not right to proceed with the changes in the hours. I cannot possibly accept this Amendment, with the best will in the world. I do no think he should ask this. I think the case has been clearly established that Clause 95 should be implemented so that these reductions in hours should take place next spring, and that Clause 96 should be implemented as soon as possible thereafter. That means as soon as these machines are ready, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that view.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for trying again to persuade me; but I am afraid that he has not in fact persuaded me. The two basic points are that enforcement of the law as it now stands is well known to be virtually impossible. This was said again and again in another place, and has been said most cogently from the noble Lord's own side of the House. Therefore, if the drivers' hours are further shortened enforcement will become even more impossible. It is quite obvious that many firms will dodge the shorter hours at the expense of the firms which observe them. Secondly, on productivity there is no doubt at all that there is a direct link between the fitting of these instruments and the greater productivity which is essential. The noble Lord has failed to answer these points, and therefore I am afraid that I must press my Amendment to a Division.
7.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 241) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Crathorne, L.

Howe, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cromartie, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Atholl, D.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Audley, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Balerno, L.

Digby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Barnard, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Barnby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mottistone, L.

Belstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Ferrier, L.

Moyne, L.

Brecon, L.

Glentanar, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brentford, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller]

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Sackville, L.

Conesford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sanderson of Ayot, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Swinton, E.

Vivian, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Somers, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Tweedsmuir, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Rhodes, L.

Arwyn, L.

Headford, M.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Royle, L.

Boothby, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller]

Bowles, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Simon, V.

Burden, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Carron, L.

McLeavy, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stonham. L.

Crook, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strabolgi. L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Plummer, Bs.

Walston, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

SWAZILAND INDEPENDENCE BILL
8 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have it in command from The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
By introducing this Bill Her Majesty's Government are giving effect at once to their general policy for the constitutional advancement of the dependent territories, and to an undertaking which they were glad to give to the Government of Swaziland last November. They had been asked, and they had readily agreed, to take the action necessary to enable Swaziland to become independent on September 6, 1968. The Bill provides for Swaziland's independence from that date. The Constitution will be provided for by Order in Council.
1176
My Lords, I think it fitting to refer tonight to the services during the period of our administration of the many officers who have gone to Swaziland from this country and from other parts and made their contribution to the administration, development and welfare of the country. Sir Francis Loyd will have had the distinction of serving as Her Majesty's Commissioner from the time that the first Constitution of Swaziland came into operation until the moment of independence. We are grateful for his loyal and devoted services and wish him well where-ever his future may lie. He and all his predecessors have had the unflagging support of all branches of the public services. For some of them it is the end of this particular road, but I am happy to say that for many more there are continued opportunities for service in Swaziland, which the Government of Swaziland have invited them to follow. Our good wishes go also with those who will be leaving and with those who will stay.
The country which will now be achieving independence in the constitutional field is at a most interesting stage of economic development. Everyone who visits Swaziland seems to be impressed with the beauty of the scenery, the charm and sincerity of its people, and the vigour of the economic expansion over the past few years. Certainly, the country is bleassed with a fortunate variety of climate, with good and varied types of soil, and with mineral resources beneath it.
We recognise that Swaziland, which has stood in need of support for the

1177
budget and aid for capital development for a number of years, will continue for some years to come to need external aid. We have already been able to settle what we can provide for the whole of the financial year 1968–69, so that, in effect, we have provided for the first six months of independence. Although we have no commitment beyond that date, we have agreed to talks on post-independence aid towards the end of the year, and preparations for these talks include the visit of a team from the Overseas Department of Aid to Swaziland this month.
The foundations of this country have been truly laid. Without undue disturbance of his traditional position and powers as leader of the Swazi people, the King is in a special position and, as Head of State, is also the constitutional Monarch. His Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, is well established and enjoys very wide popular support in a country where by good fortune, and I think I may say good sense, race relations have not aroused antagonisms and their attendant problems. The state of the economy gives reasonable grounds for hope of continued development. The auguries are, it seems to me, favourable, for the grant of independence for which the Bill provides.
I do not know whether your Lordships wish me to deal with the clauses of the Bill. They will be familiar to many of your Lordships who have sat in this House over the years, in the sense that the Bill is very much like those presented in the past for the granting of independence. Perhaps I may mention only Clauses 3 and 4, which are concerned with citizenship. Swaziland already has a citizenship and those who possess it are British protected persons. The Bill will withdraw that status from them on Independence Day. The Bill will also withdraw citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from any person who is a citizen of Swaziland on that day, with the normal exception of those with close connections with the United Kingdom and its remaining territories.
I feel sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in expressing to the King of Swaziland, the Prime Minister, the Government and the people of Swaziland our heartfelt good wishes as Swaziland achieves her independence. If this speech is short, its shortness only adds to our
1178
sincerity. This is not the parting of the ways but the beginning of a new stage of our journey in which we shall walk together—the United Kingdom and Swaziland—in continuing friendship as members of the Commonwealth, since Swaziland has already been accepted into the Commonwealth.
My Lords, with those few short words I commend this Bill to you; and I trust and believe that Swaziland has a great and happy future. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Shepherd.)
8.8 p.m.
Loan ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having clearly and concisely explained to us the provisions of this Bill. I should like to say at the outset that we who sit on these Benches warmly welcome it, and are delighted that the long and fruitful association between our two countries should end in agreed independence. We would also associate ourselves with what the noble Lord said and congratulate, with respect. His Majesty King Sobhuza II and all those who serve the people of this kingdom well, especially, as the noble Lord mentioned, Her Majesty's Commissioner, Sir Francis Loyd. Swaziland is the last British colonial territory in Africa to receive independence, and this Bill therefore has a particular significance.
British policy on independence, which has in general been accepted by all Parties in this country, is that it should be granted when it is clear that the colonial territory can stand on its own feet and when independence is requested by the majority of the inhabitants. It is quite clear in this case that the majority have overwhelmingly approved the request for independence; and, as regards the capacity of the country to stand on its own feet, Swaziland, as the noble Lord mentioned, is blessed with diverse and rich deposits of mineral wealth. She has, moreover, a political stability rare on the African Continent. She is blessed with wise and realistic leaders. It is true that the country will require aid from Britain after independence, but this need is not confined to colonial territories. The move to independence is taking place

1179
in an orderly manner, with full consultation at every stage, and I think that both Swaziland and Britain should be proud of the civilised way in which this very difficult process has been achieved.
There are just two matters that I should like to raise: they were brought up in another place but were not fully clarified, and if I may I should like to ask the noble Lord about them again. First of all, there is the matter of land alienation. In response to questions, the Under-Secretary admitted that on this matter the British and Swaziland Governments were still at odds. This is likely to cause grave difficulties in the future and could lead to racial trouble. The ownership of land arouses deep emotion everywhere, not only in Africa, and I should like to ask the noble Lord what is to happen after independence. Is this issue to be a running sore, souring relations between our two countries for the foreseeable future? When Swaziland becomes independent she will be so in all senses, and there must he a danger, therefore, that she will take unilateral action in this matter. If she were to do so, it would be unfortunate. Is it too late to ask the Government whether they cannot conclude an agreement on this subject with the Swaziland Government before independence, rather than leaving this very complex matter to be sorted out later?
My second question concerns citizenship, which was mentioned by the noble Lord. As I understand it, all the citizens of the present protected State of Swaziland will become citizens of independent Swaziland from the date of independence. But what will be the position of the 200 or so South Africans who took up Government posts in the Protectorate and for that purpose registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, so automatically losing their South African citizenship? These people have the right to acquire Swaziland citizenship if they apply not later than August 15 this year, but presumably if they do not apply they will retain their United Kingdom citizenship. I would ask the noble Lord, if he is able to answer, how many of these people have in fact applied for Swazi citizenship; and are there any other categories in the same boat?
1180
I also understand from what he said that there is no danger that anybody in Swaziland will be left Stateless. There was a point in the White Paper (Cmnd. 3568) saying that the Swaziland Government proposed that births in Swaziland after independence should confer citizenship only if the father was a citizen, but I understand that this has now been overcome and that the Independence Constitution will ensure that no citizen is left Stateless.
The noble Lord told us of the budgetary and development aid to Swaziland which is agreed until March 31 1969, and that new negotiations to cover the three-year development period 1969 to 1971 will not take place until after independence. This is not very satisfactory, but I can see that there are difficulties, and I hope that a satisfactory agreement will be reached.
Finally, I am delighted to hear that Swaziland is to apply for membership of the Commonwealth and that the members of the Commonwealth have agreed to accept her. It would be idle to deny that Swaziland, dependent as she is on South Africa, and I suppose to some extent on the Portuguese Port of Lourenco Marques, might perhaps run into some difficulties with the more militant African States to the North. However, I am sure that the wise statesmanship of her leaders will solve any such difficulties with moderation and good sense. I am delighted that Swaziland is to join the ever-growing throng of independent nations, and that she is to keep her special relationship with this country and the Commonwealth.
8.14 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have spent a good deal of my life in championing the cause of Asian and African nations to independence. But I have some reservations about the Bill which we are considering to-night. Yesterday I was with a great educationist who has experience in Southern Africa. I will not identify him because I want to quote him in private conversation; he remarked that we ought to have regarded the High Commission Territories in South Africa as "West Berlins". Just as we regard West Berlin as a surrounded outpost in Communist Eastern Germany, so the three High Commission Territories have been outposts in

1181
apartheid South Africa. And if we had recognised them as that, then we should have done very much more for their development than we have done in past years.
Looking over that history, during the time of both Conservative and Labour Governments, I have the very strong impression that there has been an attitude of defeatism which has taken the view that sooner or later those High Commission Territories would become part of South Africa. Because of our neglect, those three territories—Lesotho, Botswana and, now, Swaziland—despite their political independence, are dependent upon the Government of South Africa with its apartheid system. There has been shocking economic neglect in aid over these years; there has been also neglect in providing educational opportunities. It should be in our minds when we pass this Bill to-night that the 300,000 Swazis are among the most illiterate of all the African peoples.
I recognise that Swaziland has greater opportunities than Lesotho or Botswana. It has greater opportunities because it has rich mineral deposits, considerable economic development; and if these were used for the independence of their country they could bring much happier results than in either Basutoland, renamed Lesotho, or Bechuanaland, renamed Botswana. In Swaziland, however, we have a situation where the Administration is under the control of African traditionalists, the Chiefs and their circle, and of the minority of 10,000 white settlers, many of whom are South African. I admit at once that they represent at the present time the majority view in Swaziland. But I also say this: the African population of Swaziland will, as the years go by, become responsive to the mood which is now passing through all African peoples: the belief in self-reliance, the belief in democracy and the strong resentment of the system of apartheid in the neighbouring territory of South Africa. My Lords, the Constitution of Swaziland which will be endorsed by this Bill, was determined by three British representatives in negotiation with the African traditionalists about whom I have spoken and the white settler minority.
I was very interested that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, spoke about the
1182
alienation of land. More important is the alienation of mineral rights. In the first draft of the Constitution it was suggested that the mineral rights should be the property of the King. I pay tribute to my friend Mr. John Stonehouse, who was then Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office and who declined to accept that provision. Like the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition, I am concerned about the future in this matter. The decision not to regard mineral rights as the property of the King was accepted only temporarily, and just as in the case of land alienation it could be reimposed after independence. I think a difficult and perhaps even a dangerous situation may arise in Swaziland when these issues of aristocratic ownership of land and of minerals come into conflict with the inevitably increasing democractic pressures.
The other issue I wish to raise about the Constitution is the distribution of the constituencies from which the Parliament will be elected. There were complaints, and I went into them in some detail, at the last election that practices were carried out against the Ngwame National Libertary Congress, the Opposition, representing the more modern views among the African population. They polled over 12 per cent. of the votes. I recognise at once that the other Farties had the vast majority of the electors, but the interesting fact is that the votes which went to the National Libertary Congress were cast in the towns. They were the Africans who were responding to modern conditions and who were most educated. They were the Africans who most represent the developing forces in ideas, industry and employment.
Under the new Constitution there are to be only eight constituencies in the whole of Swaziland. They are to be three-member constituencies. They are not even to be under proportional representation, and they will include not only the populations of the towns but of large rural areas around. Inevitably a constitution of this character will tell against minority interests and minority parties. If there were single member constituencies separately representing towns as well as country areas, the minorities would have some representation. Because I am so concerned that the future of Swaziland should be enabled to develop by democratic means, by education and

1183
persuasion rather than by conflict I feel I must give a warning to-night that a constitution which will prevent the democratic expression of minority views, and the views of the more dynamic Africans who are living in the towns, might bring about a conflict outside the normal challenge of parties within a democracy.
The other point I want to mention on the constitution is that the King of Swaziland is given the power to prevent constitutional change. This means that if new democratic elements are arising in Swaziland, as they inevitably will, and are pressing for changes, a constitution which gives the King power to prevent any changes will also contribute to the danger of conflict.
I appreciate that it is now too late to alter these decisions. But because I am so concerned about the democratic future of Swaziland, I would appeal to my friends there who belong to the parties of the Opposition to accept the fact that Swaziland becomes independent and to build up their parties on the basis of education and reason and the conversion of the majority now against them, so that there may be effective pressure in Swaziland for the changes which I believe are necessary, and without the conflict which I fear the present constitution may otherwise arouse.
8.28 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Brockway will forgive me if I do not express complete approval of the details of his speech though I would like to assure him that on the broad issues he and I are in complete agreement. I would like to add from these Benches a warm welcome to this Bill and to extend to the young nation of Swaziland all our good wishes for its future happiness and prosperity.
Many of us must feel a slight pang at the ending of a notable chapter of 80 years of close political ties between Swaziland and this country. These years have been marked by an outstanding record of service by generations of British civil servants and officials who have every reason to feel proud of their services to Swaziland. But these old relations are now being founded on a new and more secure basis involving total
1184
political independence for the people of Swaziland. Here it is a source of pride to note the active part being played by the Commonwealth Development Corporation (as I am sure will be emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, when he comes to speak) in the economic prosperity of Swaziland. That, I feel, is the best way that we can show our absolute confidence in the future of Swaziland, and the wisdom and foresight of its rulers.
My other concern in intervening in this Second Reading debate is to emphasise one point on which many of us feel very deeply indeed. It is to express the hope that in future all political issues will be subordinated to the one urgent vital issue, and that is the material prosperity of the majority of the inhabitants of Swaziland. Although independence is being achieved under the most hopeful omens, this little country faces very grave immediate problems. Internally, she has to maintain the unity of her people within her present tribal system, the one great cohesive force that can maintain the prosperity of the country, despite its out-ward Parliamentary structure. Here, internal political tensions must be restrained. They can only be divisive in their effects. The results of the recent elections should now bring all minority factions to work together, and under Swaziland's acknowledged rulers, for the benefit of the mass of the people, and not for the personal benefit of the few.
The economy of Swaziland is not geared to face the dangers of political upheaval. The problems of land tenure must be settled eventually in the interests of the poorest elements of the population, and not to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The great mineral and agicultural resources of the country must be harnessed to raise the material standards of the people. By that factor mainly should the policies of the Government of Swaziland be judged in the immediate future.
In the wider economic field it is to be hoped that Britain will continue her help to Swaziland, both through the Government, and for a time, also, by continuing the magnificent projects already so well rendered by the C.D.C. But there is nothing to be gained by deceiving ourselves and failing to recognise the fact that the whole future of

1185
Swaziland must inevitably be closely linked with South Africa. Not only is she surrounded entirely by South African territory, but the whole field of her economic development in the future must depend not only upon the good will, but upon the active investment of capital by her powerful neighbour. One can only hope that South Africa will interpret her great opportunities in Swaziland, not for the advancement of her own material wealth (for that can be increased relatively only very little in Swaziland) but to assert the right of Swaziland to full economic and political co-existence.
We all profoundly trust that this great little country will, by the disinterested help of South Africa, become an example to the whole of Independent Africa of what Africans can achieve in material prosperity and in asserting the dignity of man. With these few remarks, my Lords, I should like to endorse all that has been said from these Benches, and to give my warmest support to the Bill.
8.35 p.m.
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: My Lords, I am very happy to-day to join in congratulations to the Swazi nation on the state of their country and in good wishes to Swaziland for its future as an independent country. I was particularly happy to listen to the speech the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made and to hear him, very rightly, pay a tribute to the work that Sir Francis Loyd has done in Swaziland in recent years. I can assure him that in the past, when I was closely associated with Sir Francis in Kenya, he did equally good work there.
In 1968, anyone who looks with an impartial and discerning eye at Swaziland must be struck by one feature of the country and that is that, compared with other small countries in the African continent, there is a remarkable economic development. There are important and well-diversified projects for economic development. There is a large asbestos mine producing very high quality asbestos and run by term renewal with security of tenure, which was not the case in the past. There is an iron ore mine and, as a result of the construction of that mine, there has now been built a railway right across the country to join up with the Portuguese railway in Mozambique—a thing which everyone associated with Swaziland, and I was very
1186
closely associated with Swaziland in the past, has always dreamed of happening. There is in the high country just South of the capital, a large pulp mill and 100,000 acres of pine trees, both owned jointly by the Commonwealth Development Corporation and by Courtaulds. In that undertaking now there are employed about 3,800 men; many of them earn what by African standards are certainly very high industrial wages, and there is a good and expanding scheme for artisan training—the sort of thing that was quite unknown in the past in Swaziland.
In the low country of Swaziland there has been a big development of irrigation. Irrigation twenty years ago had not come to Swaziland at all. There are two large sugar mills, one very successfully run by a private company, one also managed and financed by the Commonwealth Development Corporation, each producing over 80,000 tons of sugar a year. And about 5,000 families—that too low a figure; I think perhaps rather more than 5,000 families—of Swazi now gain their living in security with irrigated agriculture, far more secure than dry-land agriculture in a dry country. With that security in the low country of Swaziland, with the series of agricultural developments that have follower—the building of a big diversional weir on the Komati River by the Commonwealth Development Corporation—the number will go up in the future, since there is now also a large dam. There is a particularly interesting development—and this I think is the future of many African countries. There is run by that Corporation, of which I must say I am the chairman, a large estate growing citrus and sugar and rice, and all round it now there are a number of small farmers. This is a scheme known as the Uchrus Estate, or plantations, and the whole idea is that the benefits of up-to-date management and up-to-date scientific ideas should spread from the large estate to the surrounding small farmers. And it has done very well for Swaziland. It has proved what many people doubted in the past, that Swazis can become very efficient and active and successful individual farmers.
There are several other important economic developments in Swaziland. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd has mentioned, Swaziland still does not pay

1187
its way. On the other hand, I think one should say that Swaziland currency is inexplicably tied to that of South Africa; yet its exports come mainly to Great Britain. I think it is a fair guess that, if it had not been for the situation in which we devalued and South Africa did not, which therefore hit Swaziland very heavily, Swaziland probably would be on the threshold of paying its way. Anyway, whether that is so or not, the picture of Swaziland in 1968 is that of a flourishing country with plenty of jobs offering to its people, and plenty of chances of further economic development.
My Lords, what I want to say to-night is that it was not always like this. In 1944, when I first visited that beautiful country, scenic beauty was about all there was to encourage those in Swaziland. There were a number of European farmers, it is true. There was an asbestos mine still not completely developed, since there was not security of tenure for the company. For many years the country received an annual grant-in-aid from the British Government, and that was stopped during the war simply because there was not the wherewithal to maintain either the roads or the Government houses and both were in a very bad condition indeed. After the war the grant was resumed. In those days there was hardly any new development in Swaziland. There was a general air of decay, and there was ill-feeling and constant bickering between the leaders of the Swazi nation and the Colonial Government. There was a crying need for some large wealth-producing unit to put the country on its feet.
How did the change take place between the gloomy prospect of 1944 and the encouraging one we see in 1968? As usual in a developing country, it was the first step that was by far the most difficult, and equally, I believe, the most important. That came primarily through the bringing of first-class technical brains from a large developed country into a developing country, and those brains belonged to a man named Dr. Craib, who at that time was the chief research officer of the South African Forestry Department. He left that Department and came to Swaziland, where he found that it was possible to grow pine trees with great success in the high mountains which pre-
1188
viously had only been grazed by sheep. He established there two forests, one of which I have already mentioned and which had the pulp mill in the middle.
With the first forest—that is, with the first big economic enterprise in the country except for the asbestos mine—everything at once began to change. The velocity of circulation rose, as in the economic textbooks. I was there at the time, and I remember it extremely well. New people came in, and there was a small housing boom. The shops made higher taxable profits; people began to buy lorries, and new licence fees were paid. Land was bought and sold, and the Government received higher transfer fees. Postal revenue rose; and, above all, this first big enterprise brought Swaziland to the notice of the outside world, with its money for investment and its know-how for management. And from it there flowed other enterprises, of which I have tried to describe one or two.
It was a most happy transformation and, as usual, several people contributed to this. One was Dr. Craib; another was Sir Edward Beetham, a fine administrator and afterwards a successful Governor of Trinidad. During his period of office in Swaziland the relationship between the Swazi nation and the Government was completely changed; and for the better. But above all—and this is the point I want to emphasise to-night; and it is important after listening to the sincere speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because it explains the attitude of the Swazi people—there was the part played by the Paramount Chief, who is now King Sobhuza II.
In the early days, particularly in the establishment of the two big forests and the expansion of the asbestos mine, land exchanges were required, since Swaziland was then a patchwork quilt of small Swazi areas and European farms, and it was impossible to have a big land development which was any use to anybody without there being an exchange which affected the economic benefit of the Swazi. Yet, given the past history of the country, such an exchange, seen through Swazi eyes, appeared at first to be an appalling prospect. The exchanges which were made, either for the forests or for the mines, or for anything else, looked at through a Western and economic eye were to the benefit of good

1189
land use. Yet, given the past history of land use, the land grievance was not unjustified. That land problem is still not completely resolved, and if a solution could be found, if possible before independence, great benefit would flow from such a development.
The story goes right back to 1907 when a very bad partition was made in which the Swazi received only one-third of their own country on a calculation of the growth of population which proved entirely wrong. Later, in the 1930's, an attempt was made to get more land for them, and, rightly or wrongly, the Swazi thought they had been cheated. In any case there was a very deep feeling about land. I think, again with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that it is much deeper than the feeling about minerals.
It follows that any agreement about exchange of land—and such exchange was necessary for development—was extremely difficult for the Swazi to accept. I had always thought this was so even in the late 'forties. This view was confirmed when I visited Swaziland in February this year and had the most interesting conversion with the Prime Minister, Prince Makhosini Dlamini. He told me that when the first land exchange was proposed, I think in 1946 or 1947, the then Paramount Chief put it to the Inner Council, of which he himself was a member, and there was very strong opposition indeed. They attacked the Paramount Chief more strongly than ever, and the words they said to him were, "You love the trees more than the people,"—a very telling phrase in those circumstances.
But in spite of this he had become convinced that his people needed this development, and he stuck to the point. He persisted with great courage and foresight and carried the day. It was a very courageous action. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that from that action of the man who is now King Sobhuza II has flowed nearly all the prosperity of Swaziland, because without that action it would have been impossible to get the early land development, and without that none of the subsequent investment, which has given jobs, the modern outlook, would have occurred. In fact when one looks at this action of his one can say: hence the other de-
1190
velopments, and hence the reverence with which he is regarded by the Swazi to-day. They think that he has led his people into prosperity; and they are right.
And that is why, my Lords, whether you like to think of him as a traditionalist or anything else (I do not think labels matter very much), King Sobhuza has a very powerful position in Swaziland today, and will always have it so long as he is alive. I felt that on this happy occasion this should be said. It happened a long time ago, but it is very important to this country and as a result I think it is a story of a small African country and of very good happy co-operation between the British people, both in Government service and in business. Finally, let me add that most of my life has been spent in African development. To develop a small country is infinitely harder Clan to develop a big one. It is very much easier to get development in Nigeria than in a little West Indian island like Montsarrat or St. Lucia. Swaziland is a small country but it has been developed, and I believe that its prospects for the future are good. It has a pretty stable Government. The Swazis are not, it is true, the most sophisticated people, but they have a remarkable degree of common sense.
8.48 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to join in the universal welcome and good wishes which we all feel and offer to the King of Swaziland, his Parliament and his people. I have listened with the deepest interest to the noble Lord, Lord Howick, because he has a knowledge of the country which none of the rest of us is fortunate enough to possess, and I think it is a great privilege on an occasion like this to be able to have a sketch from somebody of his knowledge and experience. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, partly because I do not think this is the occasion for airing certain views, and I do regard his speech as having been a mixture of false impressions and bad advice. I should be only too pleased, in another debate when it would be a suitable subject, to argue that matter further with him.
To return to Swaziland, it is true that the natural resources of this country, both mineral and agricultural, added to the absence of any grave racial and tribal problems, and also the mature national

1191
character, provide a sound basis for successful independence and that cannot be said so easily of many other countries which have attained independence.
It is also true that for some time Swaziland will need outside help, in capital and technical skills, for developing the diversified economy which will give her genuine freedom. A glance at the map shows that much must hinge upon amicable relations with the Republic of South Africa and it would seem that there is every prospect, under the wise guidance of the traditional leaders of Swaziland, that she will achieve friendly co-operation which the interests of both countries demand.
After all, the declared policy of the South African Government is that of the good neighbour; and she has repeatedly emphasised that her help, scientific, educational, and financial, will not unreasonably be denied to any of her African neighbours who care to ask her for it. She has also explicitly declared that her interests are in fair trade and development of all kinds for the mutual advantage of both of the countries concerned. She has also said most emphatically that she wishes to interfere in no way with the domestic affairs of her neighbours.
I should be the last to underrate the immense benefits derived by Swaziland from the operations and the assistance of the C.D.C., and also from the guidance and the financial help given to her by the British Government; and for the assistance, of course, and the great work done (to which Lord Howick has paid tribute) of the British officers who work there.
Now that she will stand alone on her own feet, the maintenance of good relations with the great republic next door to her must be a predominant factor in making a real success of independence. So we all wish for Swaziland and its people the happy future which wise guidance will so ensure.
8.53 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I do not intend to speak for more than a short time to-night, because we have already heard a series of eloquent and informative speeches, and I certainly feel that this is not an occasion for contentious debate, otherwise I might have entered into a discussion with the noble
1192
Lord who spoke last, particularly having regard to his apparently unqualified admiration of the Republic of South Africa.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, he really is out of order speaking from the Bishops' Bench. If he would just move back one row, he would bring himself within the custom in your Lordships' House.
LORD SORENSEN: I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House. A certain ecclesiastical trait must have directed me to the wrong Bench. I think I should certainly say that I am not a member of the Established Church.
To return to the matter under discussion, since the days when India became free and independent, we have seen a number of portions of the British Empire steadily pass out through the gates into freedom and responsibility. At first many of us had good will, confidence, and hope regarding the development of those countries. Part of that has been justified by subsequent events; part has not. We deplore the fact that so many countries secured their independence only in course of time to adulterate it, and instead to pass away from the full freedom we believed they would exercise into some kind of dictatorship or, on the other hand, into internal disruption. But this is in the nature of things, and it is no excuse whatever for us to deny the right, the inevitable right of all peoples who were once within our Imperial domain to achieve their freedom and independence and work out their own salvation.
Swaziland is in a peculiar position territorially and otherwise, but that is no reason why we should not recognise that this High Commission territory must, like the other territories, march forward and work out its own salvation. All we can do, I am sure, is express our good will to that country and hope that in the days to come it will avoid some of the errors, failures and disappointments that have accompanied other territories and other peoples when they first secured their freedom.
This is probably the last time we shall be discussing Swaziland, and that is why I am very glad we have not allowed this historic occasion to pass by simply with the excellent speeches made by my noble

1193
friend Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I am glad that others have participated because at least that will leave the impression among the Swazi people that we are deeply concerned about them, and as they go forward we are not merely saying "Good riddance" but we are saying "Good will".
One other point and then I will close. Reference has been made to the inner conflict between what has been called "the traditionalists" and the incipient democratic movement of Swaziland. It is, of course, a little paradoxical for us to decry "traditionalism" in a House which itself is the repository of past traditions. We ourselves stand open, of course, to the criticism that we had better put our own house in order before we decide what shall be done elsewhere. But just as in this House we are transforming the House so that it becomes more and more essentially democratic—through the advent of, I will not say people like myself, but many others in this House —so also one would hope that the traditionalism of Swaziland will also be peacefully transformed, given good will on the part of those who are traditionalists, on the part of the King, and on the part of the paramount chiefs. I see no reason why, just as many noble Lords in this House through their enlightenment gradually transform the nature of this House, so also the traditions of Swaziland cannot be similarly peacefully transformed.
For that reason I trust, with a full appreciation of the anomalous position that Swaziland is in at the present time, with the recognition that inevitably there will be this conflict between those who rely largely on the past and those who look to the future, and also with the recognition that still we must give friendly assistance whenever we can to this country, nevertheless we ask Swaziland to go forward and give an example to her neighbours of what a small, democratic, free country can do.
8.59 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Segal reminded us that we are now coming to the end of an 80 year old association between Swaziland and this country. It is right that we should look back and see the fruits of
1194
that association. Clearly we cannot look back and say we made no mistakes, or that we have done everything we could have done that we should have. I do not think any country, any government, any individual can ever be so complacent as to say that about the past. My noble friend Lord Brockway was right, I think, to point out some of our failures, and I certainly share his view that Swaziland and the other former High Commission territories should have been regarded, and still should be regarded, as showplaces, the showplaces of what tolerance and multiracialism can be in a part of the world which is singularly and unhappily lacking in those attitudes.
The noble Lord, Lord Howick, was right to point out what had been achieved by co-operation between our two countries. It is an impressive record and the Swazi people, the Swazi leaders, this country, and the noble Lord, Lord Howick, personally, have every reason to be proud. We have also helped in a fantastically rapid transition from what one can describe as tribal feudalism into a form which is approaching Western democracy. I do not hold up Western democracy as the ideal for any country, especially the African countries, but there has been remarkable progress over that period and we can take some pride in it. We must now look to the suture and to the movement forward of Swaziland, under wise leadership, so that under democratic processes it may advance towards a still more democratic form of government which will be fast and, I hope, smooth. This will include its advance towards greater economic wellbeing and eventual economic independence, in so far as any country to-day can ever be economically independent.
There is one further point which has not been mentioned, which gives me the greatest grounds for confidence in the future of Swaziland and the greatest reason for looking at that country with such interest and sympathy. It is the feeling of tolerance which exists in Swaziland itself. It is a country in which black and white, Africans and Europeans, live and work together. God knows, we need examples of that throughout the world. We need it in this country and we need it, above all, in the Continent of Africa. For that reason, if for no other, I have enormous hopes

1195
for the development of Swaziland, not only within its own territorial frontiers, but within the whole ambit of the southern tip of Africa.
I believe that the example which was set by Swaziland during its colonial days will now gather momentum so that they may advance economically and politically and, above all, show that a multiracial society can work for the mutual benefit of all the people of that country and the surrounding areas. To that end I hope and believe that Her Majesty's Government will continue to give all the moral, economic and financial support of which it is capable. Although Swaziland is to become an independent country in its own right, it will still be able to gain from us, so far as it wishes to do so, material help and any other things of which it may stand in need. I join with other noble Lords in wishing it well in the future.
9.4 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a debate in which we can all speak in unison. Even though my noble friend Lord Brockway had several reservations to make about the Constitution (which, of course, will be a separate instrument quite separate from the Bill itself), he expressed the good wishes and the great hopes which we all have for the Swazi people. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, could speak with greater authority than any of us, in the sense that he was at one time a British High Commissioner for that territory, with others. Certainly, while he is Chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has itself played a very great part in the development of this territory, I am sure that in the Corporation there will be a special affection and a great deal of sympathy for this territory, so long as it is viable.
I accept from my noble friend Lord Brockway that the accusation of neglect might stick. But I do not know of any British territory where that might not apply, if we go back far enough. However, much has been done during the short period for which we have been directly responsible in Swaziland, and much should be developed for the benefit of its people from the base that is there now.
1196
I should like to deal with the land problem, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Of course, that does not come within the Constitution. But if I know the Swazis as well as the noble Lord, Lord Howick, I am sure that over a considerable period we shall be discussing this subject from time to time. It is not a very easy matter. There is a long history behind it, and I know that the Swazis take a very strong view. For our part, we took over an appalling mess, as one of my officials described it. So there are points on both sides. But I made it very clear to the Swazi delegation at the Constitutional Conference, that if they would consider their land problem within a development plan for Swaziland, we would consider all proposals with the greatest sympathy. For the object is surely to see that the available land is developed quickly and to the best advantage of the country.
With regard to the question of mineral rights, which my noble friend Lord Brockway raised, I agree with him that what is now proposed is not what we in the British Government would have wished. We feel that the arrangements made by Mr. John Stonehouse were right. As my noble friend will appreciate, both Houses of Parliament there, after an election, made it clear that they wished the mineral rights to be dealt with according to the Constitution. We expressed our view very strongly at the Constitutional Conference, but, in the light of their very strong views and what we in this country would regard as a mandate, we felt it was right to concede the point and to make the present provisions.
I accept the concern of my noble friend about the political structure, the size of the constituencies and the result of the votes. I think it should be recognised that some 80 per cent. of those who voted at the last election voted for those who are now in the present Parliament. However, I very much share the view of my noble friend, that the political Parties in Swaziland will use education and the normal good sense of the Swazi people to see that politics are discussed, and I do not have the slightest doubt that in due course the varying views of the Swazi people will be represented in their Lower Chamber.

1197
When we looked at this question in terms of the Upper House, we found a way of making it possible for the King to nominate individuals who may have been in a political Party, and who may have fought in the last campaign. Under the previous Constitution this had not been possible, and when we put this point of view to the Swazi delegation they were very ready to accept an amendment to ensure that a candidate who had fought in a previous election would not he precluded from being nominated by the King to the other House. Clearly this gives some leeway, some flexibility, for (shall we say?) a minority political interest to be represented.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords. I appreciate very much what my noble friend has said. Could he make some reference to what I regard as the most doubtful item in the Constitution, and that is the power of the King to block changes in the Constitution even if there is a democratic demand for such changes?
LORD SHEPHERD: My noble friend did not really permit me to develop that, but I took note of what he said. Here I speak with slight diffidence. As I understand it, the Swazi people wished to ensure that the Constitution should not be changed too readily, and they provided what I am bound to say we in the Commonwealth Office felt were too rigorous or too limited powers. But this was the view which was expressed by the elected members who attended the conference, and I am bound to say—and I am sure they would understand if they were to read my words in Hansard—we accepted this with the greatest reluctance. We felt that this was something which one day, perhaps, they would wish they had not imposed upon themselves—too tight a control, too limited a provision for change in the Constitution. But this is what they waned. And as my noble friend will appreciate, when you are at a Constitutional Conference and you have elected representatives in front of you, genuinely elected representatives clearly representing the people of the territory, it is rather difficult to impose your will upon them, although we made our views very clear at this Conference.
LORD SORENSEN: Before my noble friend continues on that point, can he
1198
say very briefly whether in fact the regal power to block is determined by the King on the advice of his Ministers? If that is so, does than not provide some democratic connection?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Swazis are democratic, although, as my noble friend Lord Brockway has said, they are very much traditionalists. There is Parliamentary control: it requires Parliamentary consent for change.
My Lords, citizenship, to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred, is one of these very difficult problems, particularly in Africa. We were absolutely determined that by this Act or this Constitution there should be no Stateless persons. We were under the impression that this had been achieved. I am bound to say that I have received a letter from a Member in another place; and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, himself raised the question of some 200 persons (I think it was) who may be ill difficult circumstances. The briefing that I received before I came here, although not in regard to the 200, was that we had dealt with this problem, and certainly that if there were exceptions these could be dealt with by administrative action. However, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, and in view of the letter that. I have received, I am asking that this matter should be very carefully considered by the Department, although I say again that I am advised at this particular stage that if there were difficulties these could be dealt with by administrative action. Certainly there was no intention, either by Her Majesty's Government or by the Swazi people, that by this grant of independence anyone should be made Stateless.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Segal, spoke for us all when he said that we should warmly welcome the independence of the Swazi people but with a slight pang of regret that someone who has been so close to us should now be going alone into the outer world. I share this feeling for a people who have the courage to go out alone in a difficult world. I am sure that this small country with their confidence, the economic and political stability, and, I hope, their political growth, have a good future in front of them. I believe and hope, despite all, that they will be able to live in

1199
peace and find economic sustenance and development from their neighbours on each side. With these few words, I hope the House will approve this Bill and send a message to the Swazi people of good hope and of the everlasting friendship of the British people.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OVERSEAS AID BILL
9.17 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, your Lordships last debated the overseas aid policies of Her Majesty's Government on May 29, on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. Most of your Lordships on that occasion showed yourselves sympathetic to the aims of the Government's overseas aid policy. Most of us then expressed appreciation of the work which had been done by the International Development Association and the Asian Development Bank and showed a general sympathy for the multilateral and regional approach to the problems of foreign aid. These are the aims which three at least of the clauses of the present Bill are designed to serve.
In paragraph 3 of their Command Paper, published in August, 1965, the Government stated their policy on multilateral organisations in the following terms:
"We recognise the advantages of giving aid through international organisations and we intend to increase our contributions in common with other donors as the needs of these organisations grow and our own resources permit."
Clause 1 of this Bill, which deals with the replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association, an affiliate of the World Bank, is probably the most important single step yet taken by Her Majesty's Government in implementation of this policy.
The International Development Association was set up as an affiliate of the World Bank in 1960. Its initial subscriptions from member countries totalled close on 1,000 million dollars. Its objects were to fill a special need in the provision of development finance by assisting a number of poorer, less developed
1200
countries, whose need for outside capital was greater than their ability to service conventional loans. I.D.A. development credits were designed to impose a far less burden on the balance of payments of borrowing countries than conventional loans.
The initial resources of I.D.A. were supplemented in 1964, following negotiations conducted while the Conservative Government were still in office, by the resources of the first replenishment amounting to a further 750 million dollars. The Bill which is now before the House will enable Her Majesty's Government to pay their proper contribution of 12·96 per cent. to the resources of the second replenishment amounting to 1,200 million dollars (or £500 million) spread over three years. The British share of this replenishment will amount to £64·8 million. The proposed arrangements, including full details of the contributions of the other 17 Part I donors, are set out in the White Paper, Cmnd. 3599.
My Lords, it may well be asked: why should Britain support this proposal at a time when we are ourselves facing economic difficulties? First, the economic difficulties which this country faces are as nothing compared with those of whom ultimately these funds will help. I.D.A. credits go to countries with a per capita income of less than £100 a year. Even more important is the fact that these development credits have not only been made available to the poorest countries on very soft terms, but also the International Development Association, with the full resources of the staff of the World Bank behind it, has administered the funds made available to it so far very wisely and well.
I believe that I.D.A. has been a success story. Some 118 credits, valued at over 1,700 million dollars, have been granted in 38 countries. I.D.A., however, now has virtually no more funds; hence the need for this second replenishment. The development programmes of a number of countries (especially India) will suffer seriously if they cannot speedily receive fresh I.D.A. credits. To implement the Resolution providing for this replenishment, the Government requires the authority of Clause 1, subsections (1) to (3) to enable them to make their first payment on November 8. But for the

1201
replenishment to go through, at least twelve contributing members, whose contributions total not less than 950 million dollars, must give the Association formal notification that they will make their authorised contributions. So far, at least six of the donors, including Germany, have given this notification and the approval of four more, excluding ourselves, is expected this month or may, indeed, have already been received. The replenishment, however, cannot go through without the approval of the largest donor of all, the United States, who will be contributing 40 per cent. of the funds, that is to say, 480 million dollars or £200 million.
Noble Lords will have seen Press reports last week about the situation concerning United States legislation to implement this replenishment. It would not be proper for me to comment upon what is happening in the United States Congress. We hope, however, for a speedy American ratification, so that the desperate needs of the poorest countries of the world can be met. The best contribution we can make to securing it is to set the United States House of Representatives a good example by passing our own legislation speedily.
While on the subject of the United States, I must draw the attention of the House to one feature of this replenishment which has never previously appeared in the I.D.A. arrangements. Hitherto, the arrangement for spending the donors' contributions to I.D.A. has been that when I.D.A. came to draw upon these contributions the cash was drawn down from I.D.A. funds proportionately to the size of the donors' contributions to those funds. Thus, if the United States provided 40 per cent. of the funds, then 40 per cent. of every disbursement would be made by drawing on the United States contribution. However, over the past eight years of I.D.A. operations, although the United States has provided nearly 40 per cent. of the funds, it has received orders for less than 20 per cent. of the goods financed by I.D.A. The position as far as we are concerned is quite the reverse; for every pound which we have provided to I.D.A., we have received about thirty shillings' worth of orders. Thus the balance of payments effect for
1202
the United States has been the opposite of that experienced by Britain.
The United States authorities felt that in their present serious balance of payments position they could not justify to Congress a continuation of this state of affairs. So a new arrangement has been arrived at in this replenishment whereby, broadly speaking, for a period of three years the United States contribution will be drawn on only to the extent to which orders are placed in the United States. This means that the contributions of other participants (including our own) will be drawn on during these three years more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case.
Disbursements on commitments entered into by I.D.A. naturally extend over very many years and the arrangement is that after the first three years the United States contribution, including that part which has been deferred, will become fully available as required and after the first three years the calls on other contributors will, of course, be correspondingly reduced. The essence of the arrangement is, therefore, one of timing. Free international competitive bidding under I.D.A. contracts has been fully preserved and the American contribution is not "tied". The American contribution will be fully available to finance I.D.A. commitments wherever the orders may be placed.
This arrangement is a regrettable departure from previous practice. Nevertheless, we have to fact the fact that if previous experience is any guide, the balance of payments cost of this replenishment to the United States might well have been anything up to £100 million. In present circumstances, this is not a negligible matter, and we, and most of the other donors, are willing to help the United States out of this temporary difficulty. The arrangement will, over the next three years, almost certainly reduce the balance of payments advantage which Britain has hitherto got from I.D.A., but, on the best calculations we can make, it will not eliminate it altogether and, at a later date, the balance of payments gain should be proportionately greater. While the arrangement, therefore, has disadvantages which we should have preferred to avoid, it nevertheless represents a comparatively small price to pay for an increased replenishment of I.D.A. funds at a level of some £500 million.

1203
Turning to Clause 1 itself, I should point out to the House that its subsections fall into two parts. When I.D.A. was set up in 1960 and when the first replenishment took place in 1964, it was necessary for the Government to come before the House with legislation to secure the necessary authority. Subsections (1) to (4) give the Government power to implement the specific replenishment set out in Command 3599. Subsections (5) to (7), however, will enable Her Majesty's Government to implement future replenishments without coming back to the House for fresh legislation. All that will be required will be an enabling Order which, since it relates to a money matter, will require the approval of the House of Commons only. But clearly if noble Lords wish to discuss it, we have by the flexibility of our procedure ways in which the matter can be raised. The Government's view is that I.D.A. has now sufficiently proved itself as an established international organisation, the need for which will be with us for a number of years to come, that it will in future be sufficient to replenish its funds without recourse to a separate Act of Parliament each time.
Clause 2 relates to regional development banks. There has been a steady increase in the number of these institutions over the past decade. The three most important are the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the African Development Bank. Section 2 of the Overseas Aid Act of 1966 enabled the United Kingdom to become a full member of the Asian Development Bank.
Clause 2 is a general enabling clause which would empower the Minister, subject to the prescribed procedures, to make a subscription, or increase an earlier subscription, to any existing or future development bank. Although these powers are sought in general terms, the reason for seeking them at this time is a special one. Negotiations have been in train for some time for the setting up of a regional development bank for the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean. Her Majesty's Government hope that these negotiations will be brought to a successful conclusion. This may, indeed, come about during the Summer Recess and Her Majesty's Government
1204
would wish in that event to proceed speedily with their implementation once agreement had been reached. For this reason, Parliament's approval is being sought to legislation which will put Her Majesty's Government in a position to confirm that they will be able to implement their part of the agreement.
The last two clauses of the Bill deal with more specific matters than the first two. Clause 3, however, is still related to the affairs of a development bank—the Asian Development Bank—of which the United Kingdom is one of the 32 members. The particular purpose of this clause is to enable the United Kingdom to discharge its responsibilities by enabling those countries in the area, for whose external relations the United Kingdom remains responsible, to join the Asian Development Bank. Hong Kong, as an associate member of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, is eligible for Bank membership, and has indicated that it wishes to become a member, and by the terms of the agreement establishing the Bank, Britain must guarantee Hong Kong's subscription. In due course, Hong Kong, having become a member, may also wish to seek a loan from the Bank. The terms of any such loan and of any further guarantee required of Britain in connection therewith would need to be separately submitted for the approval of the House of Commons. The clause will also permit Her Majesty's Government to sponsor application for membership from Brunei and Fiji at a later date, should they wish to make them. Although the clause proposes a limit of £5 million to the British guarantee, it is difficult to envisage circumstances that would involve any payments of this order of magnitude. Indeed, the likelihood of any payment arising under this clause at all is very remote.
The subject matter of Clause 4 is quite unrelated to that of the first three clauses, but the Government are taking this opportunity to remove certain anomalies that have been discovered in Section 7 of the Overseas Aid Act 1966. and the operations of the Overseas Service Pension Scheme, which was introduced by regulations from the 1st January, 1967. The scheme was designed to help fill the void left by the cessation of fresh pensionable appointments overseas and the substitution of contract terms of service.

1205
It was hoped that by providing for comprehensive pension cover on a voluntary contributor basis, it would give additional incentive to service and re-engagement for future service overseas by providing additional security for the participants. Participation in the scheme is open to persons from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, serving overseas in temporary or non-pensionable employment of a public or social character approved by the Minister.
The amendments proposed by this clause are of a minor character and are intended to remove the anomaly of the 1966 Act which precluded persons from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man from participation in the scheme. The clause would also extend the provisions relating to service which may qualify under the scheme so that participants who are employed by the Ministry principally for overseas service (for example, the Corps of Specialists) can count the whole of such service as qualifying for benefits under the scheme. It also extends the existing provisions relating to continuing participation in the scheme after leaving overseas service so that participants will be able to continue contributions not only when leaving for other employment, but also when they have no alternative employment to go to. These are comparatively small changes but, nevertheless, of importance to those participating in the Overseas Pensions Scheme and I am sure they will be welcomed by the House.
The main purpose of this Bill, however, as I said in my opening remarks, is to empower Her Majesty's Government to implement their international obligations towards multilateral organisations. Most important of all, it is to enable the British Government to play their part in the great international donor effort—the replenishment of I.D.A. There is need for fresh resources, and this need is urgent. I can assure the House, as in the past so in the future, they will be wisely and well spent. I therefore commend the Bill to this House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Shepherd.)
9.35 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are very grateful, again, to the noble
1206
Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having explained this Bill to us. As he reminded us, it is not very long since we had a debate on overseas aid, initiated by my noble friend Lord Barnby, who I am delighted to see is with us again this evening to give us his expert knowledge of this matter. We had that debate on May 29. It was a very good debate and well-informed, and I do not think therefore that it would be appropriate to go much wider than the Bill itself this evening.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, the most important clause is Clause 1, which provides for a second replenishment of the funds of the International Development Association, to which our contribution, our second contribution, is to be in the same proportion as that previously agreed between the World Bank and all the other Governments concerned. Reading the debate of May 29, I did not think that any of your Lordships who were present on that occasion (and there were rather more of us here on that occasion) disputed the need for Government aid to some of the developing countries in present circumstances. There were those, of whom my noble friend Lord Barnby was one—and I would certainly sympathise very strongly with him —who thought that we should seek to expand private overseas investment and reduce Government overseas aid. But even they did not think that private sources alone could solve the present problem. I am sure that all of us would agree that the ideal solution would be one in which all countries were in a sufficiently healthy economic state to be able to trade at a profit and borrow their capital requirements in the international market. But certainly that is not the position to-day, and hardly seems likely to occur in the near future.
There is an anomalous situation al the moment. Every nation is in fact trying to seek to make a profit, to export more of its goods and services than it imports, although of course it is patently clear that the sum total of exports and imports must balance and that not every country can physically achieve an export surplus. And whereas institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund can even out these ups and downs of exports and imports in the case of a developed country, it is very much a

1207
different matter with the developing countries, where, so far as one can see, for many years ahead it will be impossible for them to achieve a favourable balance of trade. So we have to find the money for them to purchase our exports, and then we have to lend them more money to enable them to pay us interest on the money that we first lent them. This is not, obviously, a satisfactory system, but for the moment it is the best that we can do if we are to provide funds for the developing countries.
Another theme that emerged from the debate of May 29 was that of the advantages if this help is given multilaterally by a number of countries acting together. Briefly, this has the benefit of taking politics out of the aid and of making sure that the recipient country is not embarrassed by being indebted to one single donor. On the other hand, I think we should remember that there are advantages in bilateral aid, if only because it is swift and sure, requiring the ratification of one country alone, instead of, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us on this occasion, 12 out of 18 countries and a minimum subscription of 950 million dollars. This can lead to doubt and delay, as indeed it has at the moment in view of what the noble Lord said about the situation in America.
Multilateral aid can also raise doubts from a national point of view about the use being made of the available funds, but in the case of the I.D.A. I believe that the advantages of multilateral aid are accompanied by careful control of the use of the funds, as indeed one would expect of an organisation under the ægis of the World Bank. I believe that the criteria that the I.D.A. uses before granting a loan would satisfy even the strictly orthodox financial standards of my noble friend Lord Barnby—and of course I need only remind him and others that our first subscription to the fund was made by a Conservative Government in 1960.
I think it is worth remembering what those criteria are. The I.D.A. gives no aid to countries which default on their external debts or which expropriate foreign-owned property without full compensation; it gives no aid if other loans are available on reasonable terms; it gives no aid unless the project is economically viable; it insists that the bor-
1208
rowing country has to find an equal amount to the amount of the loan in its own local currency; and it is in no way inhibited from financing the expansion of private enterprise. I think those criteria would satisfy most people who might otherwise be critical of multi-lateral aid.
Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, explained, it has operated to our considerable financial benefit in export terms, although this favourable situation will not continue to quite the same extent once the special allowance—
LORD SHEPHERD: It will later, though.
LORD ABERDARE: Later, no doubt it will. My Lords, in conclusion I can only express the hope that the United States of America will ratify this arrangement for, as the noble Lord said, without agreement from the United States ratification is impossible because the 950 million dollar minimum is not achieved. We can only hope that the United States, which has such a magnificent reputation for its generosity in overseas financial aid, dating right back to the Marshall Plan, will on this occasion once again not disappoint its many admirers. The other clauses in the Bill, concerned with regional development banks and with pensions for members of the overseas service, seem to us to be sensible provisions and we support them. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
9.44 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, this subject was recently debated in your Lordships' House, and for that reason I was attracted here to listen to the Second Reading of this important Bill. In the event, we have certainly been treated to a generous explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who went into such great detail that it ought to satisfy the most exacting Member of the House, or indeed anyone who is interested in this subject. I am fully aware that it has been covered so fully that any tribute of mine should be much longer than I shall condense into these few words. I feel that this matter has been more generously dealt with than these things are as a rule.
The second paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the Command

1209
Paper (No. 3599) to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred several times. That Paper deals with such massive figures that it justifies the trouble the noble Lord has taken to help the House to understand them. The massive figure of £1,800 million, on being broken down, reduces itself to something of the order of £20 million sterling as the contribution to which the United Kingdom is committed. Taking those figures, and the other explanatory matter with regard to overseas aid, it is to be understood that this £20 million falls within the round figure of £200 million which has been referred to and is the Government's intended contribution.
With regard to this explanatory matter, it is interesting to see —and I do not think we have seen it before—that assistance is given from Switzerland of a substantial sum which is repayable over a period of 50 years without interest. That surely is an unusual thing. The other thing is the unusual position for the United States; that her balance-of-payments difficulties justify the special treatment which was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Aberdare in his most appropriate and excellent explanation. This is really the reason why I particularly have followed this question of overseas aid and want tonight to emphasise, as Lord Aberdare has already done, that there is strong feeling that, apart from the propriety of the assistance from Her Majesty's Government, which Lord Shepherd effectively presented, so far as possible there should be less help through Government agencies and more should he left to private and civilian loans. These are likely to be better supervised and policed, and this often means that they are less likely to be attracted in directions where insufficient attention is paid in the recipient countries to a proper economic procedure.
With those few words, I want to align myself with what Lord Aberdare has said and the views from this side of the House. I would again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the trouble he took to give a full explanation, and I give my support to the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may, I would express my great thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. As he knows, I did not agree with all ho said on a previous debate, but I had the feeling that in his own heart he would support us when the time came.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BLACKF OOL AND STOUR BRIDGE) BILL MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.