Lords Sitting of 15 November 1973

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

INSURANCE OF FOREIGN LORRIES
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard has been in touch with me. Unfortunately he is not well and therefore is unable to be present to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper. He was most anxious that the House should realise that this was not through idleness on his part.

VIETNAM: INTERNATIONAL CONTROL COMMISSION
3.7 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the refusal of the Hungarian and Polish representatives on the International Control Commission in Saigon to accompany the Indonesian members of the Commission and South Vietnamese officers to inspect the damage caused by a Communist rocket attack on the Bien Hao air base on November 6, during the course of which two people including a child were killed, twenty-two people were wounded and five houses destroyed; and whether they will bring this matter to the notice of the Secretary General of the United Nations with a view to the prevention of such dereliction of duty on future occasions.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELIIELVIE): My Lords, the Government
748
of the. Republic of Vietnam informed Her Majesty's Government of the rocket attack on Bien Hao airfield. We greatly deplore all such violations of the Paris Agreement. The Secretary General of the United Nations was present at the International Conference on Vietnam in Paris in March; but the Conference but was unable to agree on any role for the Secretary General in supervising the Agreement.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for her reply, may I say that I am aware that the United Nations were not directly involved in the Paris peace settlement in which we participated. But did not the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, speaking on behalf of the Government on March 6 this year, express the hope that the time might come when the U.N. would be involved? Under Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations, is not any member of the United Nations entitled, through the Secretary General, to bring before the Security Council any threat to peace, whether or not it is covered by an Agreement like the Paris Agreement? Finally, is there not, according to all the information emanating from North and South Vietnam and Cambodia, the strongest possible evidence of an imminent large-scale Communist attack? Should not we and other peace-loving countries take determined and urgent steps, through the Secretary General, to bring the matter before the Security Council and so forestall it?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is perfectly true that my noble friend Lord Lothian did say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we hoped that the United Nations would be involved. We pressed this very hard during the Conference but, as said in my reply, we were unable to achieve agreement beyond the fact that the Secretary General is entitled to receive reports. It is quite true that any member of the Security Council can raise in the Council a question in regard to which he considers would be a threat to the peace; but under the Paris Agreements there are very definite arrangements whereby the International Conference on Vietnam can be reconvened upon a joint request either by the Government of the U.S.A. and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

749
or upon a request by six or more parties. That has so far not taken place.
On the third part of my noble friend's supplementary question, there have recently been signs of an increase in the number of violations of the cease-fire and there are indications of an infiltration of men and supplies into South Vietnam from the North; but we have to take into account that all the parties to the Agreement have repeated in public their intention to carry it out.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, does this actually involve the abandonment of our rights under Chapter 7 of the Charter to bring any matter liable to lead to war to the attention of the Security Council?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, there has not been an abandonment of our rights. The Paris Conference laid down certain definite procedures; and the Conference itself in relation to Vietnam could be reconvened by the United States working together with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. As the United States has not sought to use this procedure, we do not feel that we, who are not directly involved, should take action in the Security Council.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, have the Government any doubts about the absolute impartiality of the Hungarian and Polish representatives on the International Control Commission?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: My Lords, we feel that the Commission has to a large extent been prevented from carrying out its work, both because of the partisanship of some of its members, and because of the failure of the Communist forces in South Vietnam to co-operate with the Commission.

CONTINENTAL SHELF: BRITISH AND FRENCH AREAS
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether agreement has yet been reached with France to delineate French and British licensing areas in the Western Approaches, Celtic Sea and English Channel.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: No, my Lords.
THE EARL or LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that succinct and informative reply. May I ask whether France has adhered to the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords, we have always maintained that the 1958 Geneva Convention says clearly that if a boundary cannot be determined by agreement, the boundary is the Median Line.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, following that reply, can my noble friend say whether France, having signed the Convention, or at any rate adhered to it and ratified it, did so with any reservations or has given notice of seeking to revise it?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: No, my Lords, but we are still trying to reach agreement with the French Government. As my noble friend will understand, the discussions are, of course, confidential.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me where the Celtic Sea is? I have not been able to find it on the map.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: My Lords, it refers to the Irish Sea and of course the Scottish Seas.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that everyone hopes she will press on with success, no doubt assisted by her own charm and ability?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that encouragement. We shall certainly press on, but it is quite difficult.

NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF
3.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 whether they will now confirm the assurance given to Parliament on November 22, 1972 (Hansard, col. 1019), that the resources of the British sector of the North Sea Continental Shelf "are national assets and will be treated as such".
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, following the debate on Lord Balogh's Motion on November 22 I wrote to the noble Lord on December 12 in amplification of what I had said in the debate on this matter. In my letter I said:
"The Government have made it clear that North Sea petroleum is a national asset in the same way as oil and gas and other minerals found on land in the United Kingdom. I can assure you that the petroleum resources of the whole of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf will continue to be treated as national assets in our policy for their exploration and exploitation, and we shall ensure that British interests are taken fully into account as Community energy policy is developed."
This remains the Government's view.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask whether he is aware that the publication of those words will give great heart to those who have been anxious on this matter? Could my noble friend go a stage further and say whether what he has just said refers also to the British United Kingdom possessions overseas?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid that I would need notice of that question, but the Geneva Convention has already been referred to, and I would guess that that would apply.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the present position of our being blackmailed by Arab sheikhs over oil, the assets are not Britain's but those of cosmopolitan capitalists? Does he not think that we ought now to nationalise the petroleum area of the North Sea to ensure that it is ours?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is no doubt that the ownership is national. What happens is that a licence to exploit is granted to various licensees.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Conservative Party gave the licences to the outside capitalist organisations and that they ought to have nationalised the area at the time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's view.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, my noble friend says a licence to exploit has been given to various consortia. Since many of these consortia are American-dominated, in cases where the oil does not come ashore from pipelines to the United Kingdom, but may be stored in concrete reservoirs, is it open to those consortia to sell it to anyone or is there some condition written into the original agreement making it essential that the oil should go to Britain?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, as the licences are at present, it is obligatory to bring the oil to Britain.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I may return to the broad lines of the original Question, can the Minister inform us whether there is any Community law, directive, regulation or decision which could, now or in the future, be used to limit the power of Her Majesty's Government in this matter?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not aware of any such law that could in any way affect our regarding these as national assets.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the Minister is not aware of any such law, would he investigate further so that he may be able to give us a firm assurance that there is no such law or other minor decision of the Commission or the Council of Ministers which could be so used?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is very difficult to know what could be so used in different circumstances. I have given the situation as it is at present.
LORD HUGHES: In that case, my Lords, all that we are being told is that at the moment the Government are in a position to regard these as British assets, but they cannot say whether that is going to continue to be the position.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we regard them as British assets and I see no way in which legislation could be passed in the Community, or any agreement reached, without our consent.
LORD HUGHES: That I accept, my Lords. I would ask the Minister to make quite certain that there is in fact no such law at the present time which could be applied against us. Obviously, we could veto future decisions, but what I want to make certain about is that the Minister will assure himself, and then assure us, that there is no such decision at the present time; because many of us are alarmed at the way in which at least some people on the Continent and in the Commission regard this oil as a European asset and not a British asset.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the best thing I can do is to say that I will look further into this point to see whether there is anything in it. All I can say is that no representations have been made to us so far by the E.E.C.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that Britain's ratification of the Convention, I think in 1964, anteceded our accession to the European Community by some nine years, and therefore it take priority in that sense at least?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; that is so.

SELECT COMMITTEES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe be appointed in the place of the Lord Beswick to the Committee of Selection and the following other Committees of the House: Leave of
754
Absence, House of Lords Offices and Procedure of the House.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Beswick be added to the Select Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM) rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her Majesty's Declaration that a State of Emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented in the terms set out in the Order Paper. I should like to inform the House that, if noble Lords are agreeable, I propose to move this Motion formally and to make my substantive remarks on the second Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Regulations dated the 13th of November 1973, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act 1920, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of section 2(4) of the said Act. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may begin by explaining the effect of the Emergency Regulations 1973, which are before your Lordships today, and point out any changes that have been made in them since the previous occasion when a set of regulations of this character were laid and approved by your Lordships.
Noble Lords may like to be reminded that the earlier Regulations were those which came into operation on August 4, 1972 following a strike at the docks. The House debated and approved those regulations on August 9 of last year. I should also like to mention in the course of my speech the measures which my honourable friend the Minister for Industry, has already taken to reduce consumption of electricity and to refer to the relevance of the Emergency Regulations to the general economic situation.
My Lords, it has been the practice of successive Governments—and it has I think been accepted as a wise practice—to make a complete set of Emergency Regulations at the outset. No Government can forecast precisely the course that any emergency is likely to take, and this particular emergency is no exception to that. As always, I can assure your Lordships, as I stated on Tuesday, when I repeated the Home Secretary's Statement, the use made of these powers by the Government will be limited to what the essential public interest requires. To declare a State of Emergency and to take emergency powers are always, and rightly so, treated as grave decisions. The Government accept, and accept with enthusiasm, that it is a proper Parliamentary safeguard for both Houses to have an opportunity to question such actions, and debates of this kind, in your Lordships' House and in the other place, are a necessary restraint on any too ready recourse to powers of this sort.
I turn now to the regulations themselves. Regulations 3 to 5 are concerned with the control of ports. Regulations 6 to 15 are concerned with road transport, and use of road vehicles. It is not expected that immediate use will be made of any of these regulations. Regulations 16 to 20 relate to various public services and public utilities. Regulations 17 and 18, in particular, are concerned with the supply of electricity and gas, respectively. It may be necessary, as on previous occasions, to relieve some electricity boards of their statutory or contractural obligations to supply electricity or to maintain a supply of a certain standard.
I should briefly draw the attention of noble Lords to certain additional powers to give directions, or enable directions to be given, to various river and water
756
authorities, and to sewerage authorities, under Regulations 19 and 20. The 1972 regulations allowed the various water undertakings and water boards and sewerage authorities, acting under any general or special authority granted by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, to disregard certain restrictions imposed with respect to the taking of water or of the discharge of the contents of sewers. The additional powers are designed to facilitate the task of water and sewerage authorities in doing what is necessary or expedient to maintain supplies of water or to secure the most effective draining of the sewers under such direction as the Secretary of State may wish to give.
It is not anticipated that immediate use will have to be made of these new powers, although if we remember the lessons of some earlier emergencies, there is always a possibility that if the electricity supply situation deteriorated drastically, it could interfere with the provision of water supplies and the operation of sewage disposal plants. This addition, and it is the main one, seems to the Government to be only a prudent and useful addition to the existing range of emergency powers.
My Lords, it is under Regulation 21 that my honourable friend has already made orders restricting the consumption of electricity for certain purposes in connection with space heating and display and advertising lighting. There is an additional power included under Regulation 21 which enables the Secretary of State to regulate or prohibit by order the supply or abstraction and consumption of water, in terms similar to the existing powers relating to fuel, refinery products, electricity and gas. Again it is not anticipated that early use would need to be made of the power to regulate the supply or consumption of water.
Regulation No. 22 is in the same form as in the last set of regulations, and enables directions to be given in respect of solid or liquid fuel and refinery products. This regulation could be used if necessary to control oil deliveries by requiring suppliers of oil in this country to deliver only a stated percentage of what would otherwise have gone out and, at the same time, to meet, in full, the needs of certain essential users. But these regulations have a limited life (limited to

757
30 days, unless Parliament decides to extend them) and range and the Government will not hesitate to ask Parliament for additional powers in relation to oil allocation if it proves necessary to do so in the light of the recent war in the Middle East.
The remaining Regulations, 23 to 25, on consumption and supply generally are not ones that the Government envisage that it will be necessary to make use of in the immediate future. Regulations 26 to 29 are concerned with the regulation of various transport services, and here again it is not anticipated that immediate use will be made of them.
The remaining Regulations, 30 to 40, are in the standard form, but perhaps I should draw the attention of noble Lords to a proviso in Regulation 38. Paragraph 1 of this Regulation states that no person shall be guilty of an offence against the Emergency Regulation (and that includes breaches of orders made under the Regulations) by reason of his taking part in, or peacefully persuading others to take part in, a strike. I mention this merely to make clear that these regulations are in no way directed against the lawful activities of trade unions. Their sole purpose now, as on previous occasions, is to grant the Government the necessary powers to safeguard the essentials of life.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord said that these paragraphs are in standard form. I particularly have in mind No. 33, the question of trespassing within the vicinity of certain premises. Can he tell me whether this has been so on all previous occasions?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords subject to correction, I believe that is so. I asked the same question, because I wanted to draw to the attention of your Lordships any significant change in the Regulations that we are considering to-day as compared with the Regulations which on two occasions were considered and approved last year. If there is any change on that or on any other matter my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who will be replying for the Government, will have an opportunity to notify your Lordships.
Governments are often accused of acting too slowly. I notice that in February of last year, when an Emergency
758
was proclaimed in connection with another dispute in the coalfields, my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, said in a similar debate, from this same Despatch Box:
"The second main criticism levelled in this context on the Government is that we moved too slowly in asking Parliament for these crucial Emergency Powers."—[OFFICIAL , REPORT, 15/2/72: col. 22.]
That was last year, my Lords. This time some doubts have been expressed —they were expressed in this House on Tuesday last, and were expressed also in another place—as to whether the Government had acted too quickly. We believe that it is circumspect and wise, at a time when there is a triple threat to energy supplies and when winter is beginning to set in, to ask Parliament to agree that these powers should be given to the Government for a period of 30 days.
My Lords, let me review (and I shall do so briefly) some of the events which have occurred in the last few weeks, or, in the words of the 1920 Act, "are about to occur". First, as regards coal, a responsible official of the National Union of Mineworkers has stated quite clearly—and the National Coal Board have confirmed this—that the effect of the ban on overtime would be to lead very quickly to a drastic fall in coal production. The Home Secretary was asked in another place last Tuesday whether a ban on overtime had previously been a ground for declaring a State of Emergency. So far as we can ascertain, this is the first occasion when that has been so. But, equally, it is the first time that a ban on overtime is said by both sides of the industry to have such a marked impact in the near future in cutting back production greatly in excess of the reduction in the number of hours worked. I can tell your Lordships that since the ban on overtime took effect in the coalfields there has been a reduction in output which is estimated to be of the order of 20 per cent.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Is it not rather peculiar that we had a ban on overtime before the last miners' strike and there was no call for an Emergency? Why is there a change of policy on this occasion?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think I have answered that in what I have

759
just said: that we believe, as do the National Coal Board, that this ban on overtime will lead to a reduction in the amount of coal available at a particularly crucial time, when oil supplies from the Middle East are also in question. I have also given your Lordships the figure, which is a new figure to-day—and I would ask your Lordships to give due weight to it—that the National Coal Board and the Department of Trade and Industry have estimated that in the last three days output has been reduced by something of the order of 20 per cent. I do not want this afternoon to go into all the complexities of this particular dispute between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board—I do not think it is the right occasion to do that—but I think it would be helpful to have some details in order to see this issue in a rather wider perspective. The National Coal Board's offer within the Price and Pay Code for Stage 3 would give the miners an increase on average of nearly 13 per cent. on the wage bill. This follows nearly 8 per cent., arising from a settlement in April, 1972, after the strike that took place in January and February of that year. The present offer would cost the industry £44 million. The offer is one of the best ever made in the history of the coal industry. Nevertheless, it has not been accepted, and the miners have persisted with a claim which the National Coal Board have estimated would cost approximately 30 per cent. of the wage bill to implement in full.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord again, this 13 per cent. has been bandied about. The 13 per cent. for workers working unsocial hours applies only to 10 per cent. of the men in the industry. Why say it is 13 per cent. over the whole industry when it affects only 10 per cent.?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, these figures can be argued in many different ways—and I do not want to get into an argument over figures. But let me make it quite clear to the noble Lord that the negotiators of the National Coal Board can make what adjustments they wish between different groups of workers. It was open to them to do this in the course of the negotiations in which they have been engaged, provided that the overall
760
amount is within the limits set by Stage 3 of the Price and Pay Code. It will therefore be seen, as I have already explained, that the miners will do better than average under Stage 3–because the average, as your Lordships will know, is 7 per cent., with a 1 per cent. flexibility margin, and a number of other special provisions—and thus they have more to gain than to lose from the pay policy. Their relative improvement would not be maintained in a free-for-all. So it can be said, I think with considerable force, that the miners themselves have a vested interest in seeing that the Stage 3 policy sticks.
My Lords, so far as the electricity generating industry is concerned, some members of the public have already suffered from termination of supply. This has not yet taken the form of organised rota cuts which the electricity boards have been able to operate in previous emergencies, but there have been black-outs without warning and uncertainty as to when it will be possible for supplies to be resumed. In these circumstances, it is not always feasible to guarantee supplies to priority consumers, and to maintain supplies to hospital operating theatres, to those on kidney machines, and others who have a great need for a maintained and constant supply of electricity. But, meanwhile, the talks continue with the power engineers, and it is the desire of the Government to reach a settlement in this particular issue, within the limits of its counter-inflation policy, as it is the desire of the National Coal Board to reach a settlement with the National Union of Mineworkers.
My Lords, so far I have confined my remarks to the content of the Emergency Regulations which are before your Lordships to-day and to the events which led up to the proclamation on Tuesday. But I think your Lordships would expect me, before ending, to refer to the balance of payments situation and the monetary measures which were announced also on Tuesday by the Bank of England. The October trade figures showed a deficit on current account of £298 million, and while there were some identifiable special factors—such as an interruption in the re-export of precious stones because of the Middle East war, increased fuel imports, a rise in the number of ships built in foreign yards on United Kingdom order and delivered abroad, and

761
some problems about recording imports at London Airport—there is no disguising that these figures were most disappointing and would be regarded as such not only in this country, but overseas as well. Consequently, the Bank of England, with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, raised its minimum lending rate from 11¼ per cent. to 13 per cent., and at the same time made a further call on the banks for special deposits from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. of their eligible liabilities.
This action has held sterling steady in the exchange markets at a very difficult time and, of course, is quite distinct from the Emergency Regulations that we are debating to-day. Yet in a wider sense there is a connection: what our nation is engaged upon is a determined effort— perhaps the most determined in the post-war era—to achieve and adhere to (and I emphasise the second of those words) a policy which combines economic growth with a reduction in the rate of inflation. This policy is assailed at many points: by the explosion in world commodity prices; by the comparative value of the pound and other world currencies; by the war in the Middle East; and by wage demands which exceed by a very substantial margin our real economic growth.
Of course, the miners can argue that they are a special case. They did so only last year, when in February a similar State of Emergency to that which we are discussing to-day was brought about by another dispute in the coal industry. I recognise that miners who work underground have a hard life and do work which many of us would be reluctant to undertake, even if we had the skill and strength to do so. But, my Lords, we are in Parliament. We have a duty to see the whole picture. It is not necessary to dismiss the feelings of men like miners, who work long hours in difficult conditions, in order to come to a judgment of the needs of society at large. I believe that an overwhelming majority, if not all, of us in this House accept the need for a prices and incomes policy. The aims of the policy have indeed been agreed between the Government and the main interests in the economy. There are, of course, differences as to the implementation of those aims, but as the standstill of Phase 1 has
762
given way to the gradual easing of Stages 2 and 3 we all know that it is simply not possible to abandon all limits altogether. To do so in response to the demands—legitimate and just as they may appear to those making them—of special interests would be to negate the effectiveness of the policy upon which so much depends.
We are really talking to-day, as we have been for some months when discussing the economy, whether we realise it or not, of the future of our country and of what sort of place Britain is to be. I would be the last to argue that human happiness and achievement can he measured solely in economic terms. But I am utterly convinced that unless we face up to the consequences of what a policy for expansion entails we shall fail in our responsibilities. We therefore must see these Regulations in the context of the wider considerations that apply, and that is why I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to approve these Regulations to-day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Regulations dated the 13th of November 1973, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act 1920, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act.—(Lord Windlesham.)
3.44 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, it is my duty, first of all, to thank the Leader of the House for his introduction of these Regulations and for telling us of the actions which the Government have taken up to now. Let me say at the outset that I am not going to discuss the actual dispute as between the miners and the Coal Board. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that he was not going to do so, and then set about doing precisely that. When I say I am not going to do it, I am not going to do it; because I do not believe that at this stage it is wise for us in Parliament to go into what is clearly a dispute between the men and the management. Nor is it my intention to discuss the actual Regulations that we shall shortly be passing. They appear to me to follow the well-established precedents for Regulations of this sort, with some slight additions and with a completely new paragraph under the heading "Consumption and Supply of Medicines".

763
To these Regulations, and to the additions, we have no objections as such; but what I think the House will want to discuss are the reasons for their introduction; that is to say, both the reasons given to Parliament by the Government and the reasons that many of us suspect lie behind the move which caused the proclamation of an emergency on Tuesday last. In the past, the use of emergency powers has been a very rare event in the life of our country. Such powers were used once only during the five years of the life of the Labour Government, and that was on the occasion of the seamen's strike in 1966. Since this Government came to power, in three and a half years they have come to Parliament five times to ask for emergency powers: twice in 1970, twice in 1972 and once in 1973, up to now. In 1970 it was because of a dock strike and a power workers' work-to-rule. In 1972 there was a miners' strike and then another dock strike. Now a ban on overtime by the miners and certain electricity workers is given as the reason for a proclamation of a State of Emergency. One wonders if, at the present stage of the action by those workers, the overtime bans are really the cause of the State of Emergency that has been declared, or whether we have not to look a little further and probe a little deeper to find the real cause of the Government's precipitate action. I very much think, and assert, that it is a precipitate action. I say that because it is surely the case that the actions of neither the miners nor the electricity workers have begun seriously to affect the life of the nation, and certainly not to such an extent as would justify the declarataion of a State of Emergency.
The powers granted by Parliament to Governments under the Emergency Regulations procedure are of a very drastic nature and ought not to be invoked except in the direst emergency and as a last resort. In this case the Government seem to be seeking emergency powers as a first, and not a last, resort. They seem to be doing it without any attempt to settle the industrial disputes or to set up some form of inquiry with that end in view, namely, the settling of the disputes themselves. "Let us fight it out", seems to be the Government's stand at this
764
time: and with the economy in its present state and the winter upon us, one is bound to ask whether this is the right moment for a showdown between the Government and the industrial workers of this country.
What I suspect led up to the decision to ask for the proclamation of a State of Emergency was a Cabinet meeting faced with a catastrophic set of trade figures such as have not been faced by any Government before in the long history of this country. The shock of those disastrous trade figures, coming on top of the worrying situation with regard to oil supplies necessitating (as it probably will) the rationing of petrol and oil, caused the Government and the Minister to think: "We can surely lessen the impact of all this on the minds of the public by drawing attention to the possible result of pending industrial action and away from our failures to manage the economy successfully." It was a belligerent defensive action and, I am bound to say, well designed to hide to some extent the drastic squeeze on bank lending under which the Bank of England has created another disgraceful record figure of 13 per cent. minimum lending rate and the calling in from the banks of special deposits of the order of £600 million, to say nothing of the threat of increased taxation and further draconic measures that were promised.
I make no bones about my belief that in any country it is the job of the Government to govern, but we can have little confidence in a Government's ability to govern if it runs the country into the declaration of a State of Emergency five times in a little over three and a half years, or if it permits the economy to over-stretch itself to such a disastrous degree as to see our trade figures the worst in our history. Although blaming the Government for much that has led up to the situation, I am bound to add that a democracy such as ours demands the acceptance of large measures of self-discipline. "I'm alright, Jack, and damn the rest!" is not good enough, whether it be exercised by those whose greed and lack of self discipline at one level caused the Prime Minister to condemn the "unacceptable face of capitalism" or at another level for workers' organisations to press claims which could be met only by distorting the wage differentials to

765
such an extent as to cause massive counter-claims to be pursued which serve only to give a further twist to the inflationary spiral.
Perhaps, as an old man, but not, I hope, a soured one, I may be permitted a general comment. I see around me too many signs that make me think of the phrase "Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad." I see a Government urging the economy to "Go-go-go!" to the point of a disastrously overstretched and over-heated state and printing money at an ever accelerating pace. I see the powerful trade unions, led from behind, demanding more and more regardless of the effects on others. If we do not pull ourselves together and face up to the realities of life, irretrievable disaster will inevitably follow.
My Lords, I end by urging the Government to try to get their industrial relations policy on a better footing, and the trade unions to accept their responsibilities, not only to their members but also to the community as a whole. Those are the responsibilities their accession of vast power demands, and great power has now fallen to the trade unions as a result of what has happened since the end of the war in 1945. I am not too sure that the trade union movement, of which I hope I was a useful part, has really faced up yet to these great responsibilities.
3.54 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches were very puzzled at the decision of the Government to introduce emergency powers, and puzzled also as to what our reaction should be to this proposal. Let me say first and foremost that we should have been extremely critical as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, if the economy had moved into such a state that emergency powers were needed, drastic action was needed, and the Government had failed to take action in time. I agree we would have been the first to criticise them on a policy of "Too little and too late." At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, all Parliamentarians and all Oppositions in a democracy must be deeply alarmed and deeply anxious when emergency powers are introduced. The burden of proof has to be on the Government to show that such measures, and only such measures, are appropriate
766
for dealing with the situation in which we find ourselves. We know that the Government really believe this, too—that you cannot have a democracy, or parliamentary government, if too often and too easily when difficult situations arise the Government resort to the use of emergency powers. And so far it is difficult to understand that this action really was called for at the present time, or is indeed appropriate to the particular situation in which we find ourselves.
Having said that, I do not go along with the view which has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that the decision was taken in order to direct attention, direct responsibility and to criticise the action of the miners and the electricians. I cannot think that the Government believe that this would have been an acceptable policy to adopt, or that they would have gained any kudos or support from the electorate as a whole if that had been their reason for doing it. This is a further reason for our puzzlement. It is difficult to see how there are considerable gains to be got out of the action which the Government are taking. In any case, as the noble Lord has told us, these powers last for only 30 days, and the problems will be there at the end of 30 days.
If we look at the real causes that lie behind the problems and the situation in which we find ourselves, to what extent will it have helped to have had emergency powers once again, with the anxiety, the suspicion and the bitterness that the use of such powers is bound to cause?—for we still have the problems upon us. Are the problems of such an order and of such a kind that the use of emergency powers is really what is needed to deal with them? As the noble Lord told us, there are three difficult areas at the present time; there are the trade figures, there is the problem of oil and there are industrial disputes and the impact of industrial disputes on the all-pervasive and over-ridingly important problem of inflation. We are groping in the dark at the moment both as to the real situation in the economy and as to the real reasons for the Government's action.
May I be daring and disagree with the previous speaker, and suggest that I doubt whether the overall trade position is really as bad as those October figures

767
suggest? We have been told again and again that one month's trade figures are not to be taken too seriously. We knew that preceeding the October figures the trend on the whole was somewhat better. We know that the CBI is reasonably optimistic. We know that the exchange rates have held up remarkably well in the present crisis. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said that this is due to the fact that the bank rate went up to 13 per cent., and it may be that as a result of this it steadied the pound on the world exchanges. But I cannot believe that if the real underlying trade position was as serious as has been suggested the mere movement to 13 per cent., which could have been regarded as a panic and desperate measure, would have been enough to stabilise world exchange rates to the extent that in fact has taken place. So, sticking my neck out, I agree, and taking considerable risks in saying so, that it is very difficult to believe that our trade position is really as bad as has been suggested, and as that particular set of figures leads us to believe, and therefore as to whether real emergency measures are needed under this particular head. May I also make the point that although 13 per cent. sounds an alarmingly high figure, because of this evil and all-pervasive inflation it is really not all that high? After all, if money is losing value at about 10 per cent. per year, 13 per cent. is only 5 per cent. borrowing rate. That is not normally what one regards as a very pleasant figure though I do not regard it as either a very alarming or startling bank rate. Nor do I regard the present trade figures which we have been given as an indication of a very serious trading situation having regard to all the other indicators.
Secondly, the oil situation. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, had given us more detail about what the oil situation really is. It seems to me that this is the joker in the pack; this is the really alarming situation over which we have all too little, if any, control and which could indeed render the total economic situation very much more serious that it otherwise would be. May we ask that in the winding-up we be told more about the position in regard to oil? Because whereas many people are doubtful and anxious about the use of emer
768
gency powers, I am certain that if we knew the real facts about oil—as I said only last week—the country would respond to the need for drastic economies and drastic action in that particular to meet a specific danger with a specific draconic cure. This is something that we can all take; what we cannot take is a draconic measure for a set of circumstances which do not in themselves seem to measure up to the situation. If we have to have oil rationing, let us have it; and if it is put across properly and the reasons behind it explained—and I think the public are half way towards expecting it—then indeed we would take it. But we do not need Emergency Regulations in order to introduce oil rationing. I do not see the connection between the disease and the cure.
As to the industrial relations situation and the effect on inflation, of course this is what lies behind so much of our economic problems. We have said again and again that inflation is not solely due to excessive wage payments—we all know that by now. We equally know that excessive wage payments do make a substantial contribution. What is more important, we from these Benches have been saying for a long time that we support a statutory prices and incomes policy, properly and fairly enforced, with proper safeguards, and we cannot see with equanimity a breach in what is the Government's policy. We are debating the counter-inflation measures next Tuesday. I regretfully have the gravest doubts as to whether Phase 3 as it stands is going to work—but we shall be debating that next week. If Phase 3 does not work, it is my view that we are going to need something more, and not less, serious than is entailed in Phase 3. I believe that Phase 3 has so many loopholes that in fact it will be an encouragement to inflation rather than a cure for it. But let us leave that to the debate next week.
I cannot see that emergency powers are really required for dealing with the liability if not the necessity that Phase 3 is going to be breached. Some other action is required, but not emergency powers. So once again, while accepting that there is real danger there I find it difficult to understand that emergency powers are needed. May I say, having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that I was appreciative

769
and welcomed the courage in the criticism which he made of the failure of the trade union movement to match its great powers to-day with a comparable degree of responsibility. It seems to me the greatest pity that the Labour Party has not been able to say that more loudly and more clearly in the past, to say, for example, as the Labour Party has not said, that there must be an incomes policy as well as a prices policy. What sort of a counter-inflation policy is it to advocate —as the Labour Party, in another place at any rate, has repeatedly advocated—a prices policy and no incomes policy? We from these Benches insist that there must be a real incomes policy.
My Lords, I hope I have made clear the attitude that we from these Benches take. We accept that there is a serious situation; we do not see the relevance of emergency powers to this situation. We are not immediately going to oppose them, but we would ask for a more detailed explanation about the relevance of emergency powers to oil, and what the oil situation really is, because this seems to be more at the heart of the matter than does the industrial relations situation, serious though that is. We say that we would accept oil rationing if this were needed, but let us be told the true facts about oil and not have the situation marked by the general application of emergency powers which seem to have little direct bearing in detail on the problems we face.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Government are certainly willing to give whatever information they can about the oil situation to the House, but will the noble Baroness accept that she is seeking certainty in what is a very uncertain situation?
4.7 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I think that both speeches indicate the tone and mood of the House while we are confronted with these Emergency Regulations and I cannot for the life of me see any reason for that action. I remember particularly the Emergency Powers Act 1964 and, in case noble Lords have forgotten, I would remind them that in Section 2 of that Act, under the Defence Regulations of 1939 (I am paraphrasing and cutting out the legal semantics), the use
770
of any members of the Armed Forces for any work of national importance shall become permanent—in other words, at any time. With the due presentation to Parliament Forces could have been used in an emergency. Instead of that we get a massive statutory instrument, No. 1881, with 40 to 41 provisions all about using old cars that are almost derelict for driving because the country is going on the rocks, control of port traffic, gas supplies, right down to the power of arrest without warrant, penalties and places of trial and supplementary regulations that in my estimation are unnecessary in this crisis.
The United Nations Energy Consumption Report which is just out (sales No. E.73.XVII.2) contains full information on the production of gas, solid fuel, oil, nuclear and thermal types of production of energy in the world, and the strange thing is that there has been a record world production of energy, a record world production of gasolene and a record world production of natural gas. At present, 50 countries in the world are producing natural gas, and in the past decade the percentage increase has been greater than ever before in history. Since the world export of natural gas has grown, from 1961 to 71, at the exceptional rate of 25 per cent. this highest rate has been due often to importing this gas in liquid form. In other words, just at the moment when we are playing a threnody of despair about the world energy sources the United Nations tells the world that there is more energy than before.
Nevertheless, despite that fact (and any noble Lord can check this) I am prepared to grant that at this moment this little country is confronted with critical questions. I want to endorse the constructive speech of my right honourable friend speaking from the Front Bench when he asked a pregnant question. Why is it—
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it would be a help if noble Lords opposite would refer to Peers as "noble Lords" and not as "right honourable friends". It is the second time it has been done.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I did that once, did I? If that is the only thing that upsets the noble

771
Lord in life, I am delighted. I will try to be courteous and remember that, and I apologise to the House if that upsets anybody.
I repeat to noble Lords that it is the fifth time that this has happened in three years, and no other Government have had this problem. Why is this? I must endorse the interspersion of my right honourable friend—my noble friend—Lord Blyton when he speaks about the issue of the miners' wages. Only 14,000 out of a quarter of a million are going to get that £9. And if anybody knows anything about cutting coal he will know that they are well entitled to that £9 extra. Some of the rest are down to £3·5. I will not go into the analysis, but it is the usual and characteristic mathematical jugglery of dealing with averages. There was a fascinating letter in The Times the day before yesterday on the injudicious use of statistics in giving average wages. The fact is that if you take an average wage you find that over half the people involved do not receive it. This is due to what we call "skew" in statistics; and it can be due also to not comparing like with like. The sooner we get rid of using these averages to back up economic arguments, the nearer we shall be to reality.
I am reminded in this laissez-passer, laissez-faire system of society in which we are now living of the days of the "Robert E. Lee" running up the Mississippi. The Prime Minister seems to be like Steamboat Bill, running the ship of State up the Mississippi for a gamblers' race; he has used up all the energy and all the coal and is now burning the furniture and frightening the crew to death because the pressure of the steam in the boilers is on the point of explosion. This is exactly the kind of uncontrolled policy that this laissez-passer, laissez-faire policy has landed us in in the past three years of Conservative Government. When Wellington was made Prime Minister (I got this the other morning out of that delightful book by Elizabeth Longford on Wellington, at page 147) the King said this to him, rather lugubriously. "Arthur", said the King, sitting up in bed with a turban night-cap, "my Cabinet is defunct." And if ever a Cabinet was defunct, it is this one. Have we ever heard a more comic
772
and foolish explanation in the two explanatory speeches by Mr. Walker in trying to explain to the people of Britain why there is a great deficit of £298 million? He explains it by talking about buying a few ships and juggling with diamonds. This of course is absolutely absurd, when one is talking in terms of deficits of this size. The Government's panic crisis measures coincided really and truly with a deficit which, when a next Labour Government come in, will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2,000 million.
In the City yesterday, we are told, Mr. Anthony Barber's name was mentioned in far more scathing and bitter terms than those in which any Labour Chancellor's name was ever uttered before. The absurdity, therefore, of trying to blame just the trade union movement for problems that are world-wide should now be obvious. This folly, in my estimation, is gliding into sin. This is the kind of idiocy in high places that leads to the cold indifference of the people in relation to politicians. The people find themselves powerless and they say, "For God's sake! give us the truth." It is the truth the nation needs. We do not want a Watergate situation in this country. No Government need be ashamed of the truth, because the hard fact of life to-day, with the rapidity of modern transport, is that the interdependence of world commercial, economic, social and financial exchanges makes it difficult, and in some cases impossible, for any one Government of any political colour to have complete control over their destiny. But this Government are not even standing up to their competitiors abroad. Nevertheless, this is no reason for abandoning the reins of control and depending still on laissez-faire.
Let us take two examples, before I sit down. William Davis, in the Guardian, of Saturday, November 10, spoke about the "floating pound" which was a euphemism for devaluation. Whatever one may think of the right honourable Harold Wilson, had we in the period of the Labour Government descended towards euphemisms about the floating pound, we should have been told straightforwardly, "This is nothing more than common or garden devaluation." This euphemism saved the Prime Minister from crisis headlines. It would not have saved a Labour

773
Government. The way we have been borrowing in the Eurodollar market is completely irresponsible. The Eurodollar is, as somebody said, a green pig not fed but backed by faith. And there are billions of them floating around Europe with nothing behind them. They are worse than any fiduciary issue in history. Special Drawing Rights were built on them. But the dollar which we have been borrowing in private and in public industries is dangerous. The nationalised industries and British local authorities have been borrowing in tile Eurodollar market—the Electricity Council, the Post Office, the Gas Corporation; and they have borrowed vast sums, all helping to pile up the feeling of insecurity and lack of faith.
Up to last year, we have borrowed in the Eurodollar market some 3,000 million dollars. I should like if possible to have an answer to-day to the question: how much have we borrowed in the Eurodollar market, and why was this done? I know what it did. It was a wonderful trick. For the period of borrowing it boosted our foreign currency reserves and the Government could give out figures based on a fiction. It propped up sterling. But in sterling we have another massive possibility of blackmail—quite as powerful as oil. If there is lack of faith in this country, the withdrawal of sterling balances because of this precipitate action of creating a crisis feeling by declaring emergency powers could well intensify the crisis and lead to bitter scenes in Britain itself.
This should be a warning to my own Party. We have to get down to the brass tacks of the failures of industrialism. Growth is dangerous, and uncontrolled growth is deadly and cancerous. The fact is that perpetual growth is such a strain on the world's essential raw materials—energy, power; esoteric raw materials, copper, zinc, titanium. As standards of life go up in this world of ours, so the demand on these scarce raw materials and manpower increases. We must note that, despite the miracles of modern technology, there are areas of essential service and production where only men and women with brain and muscle power can do the work. For example, who can take the place of a hospital nurse? Who can take the place of a miner cutting coal, or the postman delivering letters?—and we are 9,500 postmen short.
774
These are the problems, and my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger added an apt phrase: when we are told that we are short of Tube drivers, we are short of miners, we are short of postmen, we are short of people on engines, and indeed we are short of manpower everywhere, she asked a beautiful question, "Where have all the flowers gone?" I can answer that question: they have gone into the "lump". They have gone into the lump system of production. Even in the mining industry now, if I am a contractor cutting coal I can go round the village and get 10 or 15 men and say, "Boys, come in with me and I will give you a wage rate according to my contract that is better than theirs". Noble Lords in this House know that in hospitals the supply of nurses is just kept going by means of the contract system of hiring nurses out at rates of pay higher than that of the S.R.N.s and others who have worked and been loyal to the hospitals. This is causing distress, and all these things should be cleaned up in our system.
It is time that the nation got rid of its avariciousness and we sought to put our own house in order, instead of rushing into the Common Market as quickly as we did and bringing out crisis measures like this Regulation, when really more discussions with the C.B.I., with the miners, with the electricity workers and others by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister would, I am sure, have led to a constructive approach by the trade union movement. For all our criticisms of the men and women of the British trade union movement, for my part they are the most common-sense trade union workers in the world.
4.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, for a long time I have thought that some of the things which I am going to say to-day should be said clearly, unequivocally and in your Lordships' House. I do so, however, with some hesitation and trepidation, not really on my own account but because it is taking a good deal on oneself as being one far less experienced in the matters on which I speak than most Members of this House. Secondly, I am concerned that what I say may have a useful effect, and it is at least possible that the reverse

775
might be the case. I have yet to find a moment which is suitable for saying the sort of thing that I propose to say to-day.
First, my Lords, few thinking, unbiased people could, in my opinion, doubt the gravity of the present and long-term future of this country, and I would emphasise the future more than the present. It appals me that in another place the Order should have been taken as an opportunity for playing Party politics on a level which I can only say was undignified. I should like to call it something quite else, but I think that is sufficient. Is it any wonder that the name of Parliament is tarnished in the thoughts of the people of this country? Perhaps this is just an expression of the general tendency to-day to have no common purpose and to be unwilling to make any sacrifices for the good of the nation as a whole.
Secondly, although I am no economist I believe we must accept that at present our output per man (in other words, productivity) is very poor in comparison with that of most E.E.C. countries. I conclude that our economic difficulties and failure to balance more than one of the economic variables at a time—for example, balance of payments, growth and our own Budget—are simply indications of this unpleasant fact. We are simply over-spending, and if we go on in this way our standard of living must inevitably fall. It is long past the time when both Parties should tell the nation some unpleasant facts about our ability to afford many of the social improvements and increases in wages which we should all like to see.
Another hard fact which the T.U.C. seems unable to grasp, or at any rate admit, is that wage increases for one sector can be obtained only at the expense of another, and those with the weakest bargaining power lose out. Let us make no mistake: if we add inflation and the increase in productivity over the years to wages, real wages have risen little more than they would taking these two factors into account, in spite of all the unions' efforts. This, if we come to think of it, is a fairly obvious truism, because there is only so much national cake to share out. The tragedy is that everyone,
776
including the workers, have less than they otherwise would because the amount of the cake has been diminished by unnecessary industrial action.
The prevention of excessive profits and large personal wealth might be good from a psychological point of view—and personally I think something should be done on these lines—but if such wealth were redistributed the effect would be small. Those who hold that view seem to be obsessed with high fixed incomes, which are utterly irrelevant from any practical point of view. The Labour Government did nothing effective to reduce the fortunes being made by entrepreneurs and there are relatively as many rich people as there ever were. The money has simply changed hands. The fixed income man, even at £30,000 a year, is not, after tax, in this league.
Thirdly, I am afraid I must speak of the unions. I suspect that those who did so much to form them into viable entities, if they are really honest, are also worried by the adult behaviour of the promising children they so carefully nurtured, with such success. Where is the leadership and the common sense to-day which they gave in so great a measure in the past? Unions to-day frequently lead from the rear and do nothing to restrain the trouble-makers, Communists and fellow travellers who are concerned only in wrecking our present society. I hope no noble Lords will make a mistake about that point. There are those whose only object is to wreck this society because they believe that it cannot be changed and they want to start again. If you ask them what they propose to do about it when they have wrecked society, they usually say. "That is a non-question". If you push them further they say, "It will take a considerable time to wreck society completely, and by that time no doubt we shall have found the answer as to where we want to go".
Part of the reason is, of course, that the unions have allowed just these people to obtain power within their structure. Unions are not democratic in any sensible meaning of that word. I was going to say that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, would deal with this matter, but I gather that he has decided not to speak. However, I am afraid I propose to do so, briefly.

777
Mr. Bert Ramelson was reported to have said on I.T.V. on November 13–and he is the industrial organiser of the Communist Party—that politically-conscious Communists are now playing a dominant part in shaping the policies of the Labour Party. He said that the liaison committee of the T.U.C. now had a Communist chairman and secretary and was responsible for promoting the present wave of one-day strikes and for increasing violence by pickets. He pointed out that we had lost 24 million working days through strikes in 1972, compared with fewer than 2 million in 1963. The degree of infiltration in the trade unions was also revealed by trade union officials. The Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers have 40 card-carrying Commuists and 40 more automatic supporters among its 175 full-time officials. The Transport and General Workers Union had 12 to 15 Communists among its 36 Executive members. Let us hear no more of the stale joke of "Reds under the bed."
My Lords, I am not a "union-basher", and for a long time I have avoided talking about them. Nevertheless, I feel impelled to say that unless they can change, put their house in order and move into the 20th century, the outlook is bleak for everyone. They are a necessary part of our present society, and it is a tragedy if they cannot play a responsible part. This has been said rather less crudely, or hinted at, by a few of the noble Lords who have spoken earlier. In any case, for the future of real democracy, I deplore the hold they have over the Labour Party in government. This, in my view, is an order of magnitude—and if anyone does not know what that is, it is ten times —worse than the influence which big business has on the Conservative side. If we overcome this Emergency, and if we are not to have the future which Lord Rothschild mentioned, I appeal to all men of good sense, irrespective of Party, to put their shoulders to the national wheel.
My Lords, I mention the miners' dispute only briefly, but if it comes to the crunch (and I hope to goodness it will not, as I am sure most do) it is surely not too much to expect that a National Government should be formed. Let us state it quite unequivocally: if the dispute goes to the limit, then this country
778
at that stage is virtually ungovernable and in a state of anarchy. In these circumstances, and to some exent even now under Phase 3, the rights and wrongs of the case are not really relevant in the national interest. It certainly is not the case that the miners are as desperately poor as we find some other people still are in the country. I should like to leave that thought with noble Lords sitting on the Opposition Benches, because I am sure they are also men of good sense. Of course I sit on the Cross-Benches, so I do not normally differentiate, but I believe that unless we take the future seriously, unless we are prepared to move together more than we have in the past, and to eschew political causes in many of the more important issues, I, for one, have no great faith in the future of this nation.
4.35 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, it is not my intention to deal with some of the very provocative statements made by the noble Viscount who has just preceded me. I imagine my noble friend Lord Shinwell may be speaking a little later on, but I was very intrigued indeed with the reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth to "Reds under the bed". This is the old bogey that he and people like him have been trotting out to the trade union movement down through the ages and in all possible conditions, in order to denigrate those responsible trade union leaders to whom this nation owes a real debt of gratitude for the way they have been able to harness organised labour, and under whom organised labour has played its part in building up the character of this nation.
My Lords, very sweeping powers have been asked for in these Regulations. The very sweeping nature of them indicates the serious position that this nation is facing. Therefore, the question must be one of analysing the real position. Is it because the miners, some 15,000 of them, are pressing for £9 a week increase? Is it because a few electrical power engineers have said that they agreed with their employers 18 months ago on a certain improvement in their conditions and, because of procrastination and delay, they are suggesting taking this step? Is this the real cause of these Emergency Regulations? Of course the answer is

779
"No". Those matters are just a smokescreen, so that ultimately, if the crisis develops, as is a possibility, the Government can say, "Who shall rule, the trade unions or the Government? Whore is the real trouble?"
Let us look at the situation as it is now being revealed almost hourly by the news that is corning in, with our disturbing adverse balance of trade, a £298 million deficit last month and an accumulation of previous months of deficit balances. One should bear in mind that when this Government took office in June, 1970, we had a favourable balance of trade. The Labour Government inherited a deficit balance of trade when it took office and had to get over the difficulties left by the previous Tory Government. By the time that Labour Government left office there was a favourable balance of trade. To-day, after three years of Tory government, we find we are deeper in the red than ever before—last month alone the deficit was nearly £300 million. This is the really serious situation that is developing.
We also find that in our trade relations with the rest of the world this Government are insisting that they know best. They have been riding roughshod over men and women engaged in industry, both employers and employees, and by the institution of certain measures they have so poisoned the atmosphere that the difficulty is not so much the dispute between both sides of industry, but that both sides of industry are greatly annoyed because the men who sit in the ivory towers of Whitehall think they know best. So we develop this recurring crisis.
A few moments ago one noble Lord referred to lost days of employment last year——23,900,000 days of lost work consequent upon industrial disputes. This under a Government which had passed measures such as the Industrial Relations Act, which are supposed to be in office to establish good will in industry. Compare that figure of 23,900,000 with an average figure for lost days previously in industry, of about 2 million per year. These are the root causes of the trouble with which we are faced to-day.
Then we have a further situation that is developing. In this Middle East dispute the Government have tried, as it were, to sit on the fence; in effect they
780
have become "men of Munich" by the appeasement of the Arabs over the oil. Ultimately we are going to receive the worst of both worlds; oil will be rationed to us and the price is bound to increase; at the same time the Israelis have lost all moral faith in us because we refused to honour our obligations to them under certain trade relations. Here is the real nub of the trouble, and here is the difficulty with which the Government are faced. The noble Viscount who preceded me suggested that this situation was far too serious and that we should rally round the Government in an attempt to get us out of these difficulties. The difficulties must be overcome, but on the other hand how can they be overcome when the situation continues in the way that has brought the crisis about? There has to be a clear-out process first.
Some of my noble friends are rather sceptical about the trade unions. I should like to draw their attention to what has been given as the excuse for these emergency powers; that is, the difficulty with the miners. The noble Lord who preceded me referred to the undemocratic position of our trade unions. What could be more democratic than what has taken place over the dispute in the mines? First, the matter was duly considered by branches, who put motions up to their national executive. Their national executive rightly considered these, and eventually called a special annual general meeting of their organisation to discuss the overtime ban that was then being advocated by their members. Their annual meeting arrived at a certain decision supporting a ban on overtime. The miners leaders, the executive, not satisfied with that, then referred the whole matter to district level, and at district level back to branch level. Here we get the real voice of the miners, who understand what is really involved; who understand that it is not a 13 per cent. increase all round; who understand all the difficulties of the very small number of men involved. This is at a time when the miners and the trade unions themselves know the difficulties of the industry; how the industry is going down because between 600 to 800 men per week are leaving the industry and seeking jobs either in "lump" labour or wherever it may be.

781
The mining life must be a terrible life; living among them and having very early experience of it, I know something about it. It is a very difficult life indeed. To prevent overtime and get good working arangements, the conditions, wage rates and so on must be of such a nature that they attract people into the industry. It is all very well for us to sit on these red Benches and tell these practical men what they shall do. These are men who are actually at the front in the productive effort, who understand these things, and the sooner the Government face up to this and realise what is taking place the better.
My noble friend who spoke a few minutes before me asked "Where have all the flowers gone?" In other words, we are told that men are leaving the mining industry, men are leaving the railways, men and women are leaving the Hospital Service. There is also the difficulty of civil servants; they are leaving local government. Where are they all going to? This is the question that the Government should be analysing, and I am sure that if they had the foresight to look at these things in the correct light emergency powers would never have been necessary; the deficit in our balance of payments would not have been anything so great as it is. The crisis that is upon us—even talk of a National Government to deal with these things—is due to the 'complete ineptitude and incompetence of this Government, and until they put their own House in order the nation faces some very difficult tasks indeed.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this question? If we increase the wages of those sections of the community to whom he referred, the miners and the other areas where we are short of labour, who is going to have less? Because at the moment not everybody can have more. If the wages of one section of the community are increased, because there is only so much national cake sooner or later it must be at the expense of others. Could the noble Lord explain how he will do this conjuring trick, or, failing that, who will then have less?
LORD POPPLEWELL: Well, my Lords, there might be such a thing as a curb on profits. There are men such as the chairman of the Fatstock Marketing
782
Board receive an increase of £16,000 a year, the Chairman of Leylands, £60,000, the chairman of Fords, £40,000–people of that description. Men and women engaged in the productive plant realise these things. It is the maladjustment that is taking place; in other words, the way the national cake is now being eaten into and a greater share going to the wealthier sections of the community. That cannot be the way to deal with it.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord was very kind and did not interrupt me, so I waited until the end of his speech. I would say only one thing. Will he read the remarks in my speech on the point that he has just made?
4.49 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, seldom have I listened to a speech more reactionary in its content and more vested with prejudice against the trade unions and the working classes of our country than that of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. He demanded, in almost acidulated language, that everybody should make sacrifices for the nation. That is a very high moral attitude to adopt, but it is the kind of demand that could be made in the City of London or at the Conference of the Institute of Directors or perhaps a body of building speculators, of land-grabbers and the rest of them. Of course it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen, every right-thinking citizen, to be ready to make sacrifices for the nation to which he belongs. That one would accept. But there must be fairness all round. There must be justice, when it comes to sharing the cake. However limited that cake may be in its circumference, at any rate in its content the share must be a just one.
If the noble Viscount had addressed himself to that side of the coin one might have been ready to listen to him without any feeling of anger, mixed with sorrow, that such a speech could be made in an Assembly of this character. It was reminiscent of the 'eighties of the last century, when the dockers of London demanded 6d. an hour and the then Lord Devonport—nobody more reactionary—the boss of the docks, demanded that, because of this "revolutionary action and demand on the part of the London dockers for 6d. an hour"

783
the troops should be brought out to deal with them. The speech we have heard from the noble Viscount is reminiscent of that attitude. We have had it far too often in the course of this century. We had it from the Marquess of Salisbury who led the Conservative Government at the close of the Boer War and the beginning of this century. We almost had it from Arthur Balfour, who did not believe that the working classes existed. We had it from Herbert Asquith, who sent the troops down to South Wales because the miners had gone on strike. They had gone on strike for what? For a minimum wage, which eventually had to be accorded to them. This is the kind of attitude that is far from beneficial in its results.
What have we been discussing to-day? It is not the economy of the nation.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should like just to ask him whether he realises that I have said almost nothing, or implied nothing, of what he is now accusing me; absolutely nothing to do with wages. In fact I said that I was in favour of reducing the wealth of the very rich people and making a distribution of that. May I ask him please to read my speech to-morrow and in future not to make accusations that have no relevance to what has been said?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, that was a quite irrelevant interruption. It persuades me to deal rather more thoroughly with the noble Viscount, because he played one of these propaganda tricks. I wonder if noble Lords observed it. As an old campaigner, accustomed to Parliamentary methods and manoeuvres, I detected it at once. Short of a rational argument he brought in the Communists. He mentioned one prominent Communist. I have not that gentleman's acquaintance. He then obviously quoted from a book that has just been written by an ex-Member of Parliament, Woodrow Wyatt, or at any rate from a television programme—the language was precisely the same. He spoke about 40 per cent. of the Executive of the Engineers' Union being Communist. We have heard it all before. It is a clever trick, but everybody in his or her senses knows that the trade
784
union movement, generally speaking, is a very moderate organisation. In fact, it has never endeavoured to adopt a revolutionary position at all. That is unchallengeable on the facts. It is on the record. All that those in the trade union movement have asked for was a higher standard of living. Who prophesied that but a prominent Conservative, 20 years ago, "Rab" Butler, now Lord Butler, when he said that in the course of the next twenty years or so the living standards of the people of our country would be doubled. That was his promise. Has it been fulfilled? Of course not. Does the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, wish to interrupt?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am sorry, I was just making a comment.
LORD SHINWELL: No, my Lords, I thought not.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, if the noble Lord challenges me, I would say that Lord Butler's prophecy has more or less been borne out, but I would say that it was not enough.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if you take into account the cost of living, and the comparative affluence in this country of those in the top drawer and those at the bottom level, I think that perhaps the noble Earl needs a little more education in industrial history. I will leave it there. If at any other time he wants to engage in a debate with me, I will take him on three times before breakfast.
As I was about to say, we are not discussing the economy of the nation, we are just discussing a very simple issue—complex it may be, but simple in its presentation—and that is whether it is desirable that the Government should introduce emergency powers. I say at once that every Government have that right. It depends entirely on the circumstances. The question we have to consider is whether emergency powers, and the regulations associated with those powers, are likely to produce beneficial results. One judges by results. Moreover, one has to consider, in this context, upon which leg the Government stand. I made up my mind about it right away, whatever disagreements there may be on the other side about what I now propose to say; and that is that the sole purpose, the exclusive purpose, of producing the

785
emergency powers and regulations was as a threat to the miners; in fact, intimidation. I use the present jargon, "blackmail".
Why do I say this? Because of the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I ask noble Lords to note what he said. He dealt just in passing with the electrical engineers' dispute as a matter that could be resolved; at any rate, nothing serious had happened. That is what he said. Then he referred to the adverse balance of payments. But then the figures could easily be adjusted; some mistakes had been made; there was some trouble at Heathrow, some trouble with the postal authorities; we had been perhaps importing rather too much at a particular period, and there are always oscillations and fluctuations when we come to imports and exports. How right he was! Of course that is not the reason. It is serious, because for obvious reasons it is not desirable to have too much of an adverse balance of payments. But that is not the reason for the emergency powers. The reason for them is as a warning to the miners.
My noble friend Lord Popplewell and my noble friend Lord Blyton, in one or two interjections, referred to the wages of the miners. I am not going to discuss that subject except to mention that Mr. Daly, the General Secretary of the Mineworkers' Union, said the other day, "Of course if Mr. Heath and others wish to have a shift or two in the mines, they are welcome." We ought to realise what sort of work it is. We ought to realise that there are fatalities every day in the pits. I do not want to be emotional. What is the good of it, anyhow? I almost said "What is the good of it in this Assembly?", but I know there are very decent people in all parts of this Assembly, and sometimes one becomes emotional and concerned about the wellbeing of others. But in a situation of this kind prejudice and bias reappear in the most formidable form, and sometimes in the most vicious form. It does not produce beneficial results.
Now what is to be done about it? I wonder whether noble Lords realise what is likely to happen if the miners continue with their opposition to the Coal Board's offer and go on strike—because this overtime ban may lead to a general strike
786
among the miners. Suppose that happens. What do the Government do? That is a fair question: What do the Government do—go on warning them? I understand the Central Electicity Generating Board and the area boards have about 13 weeks' coal in stock, and that will last for some time, but what happens after that? Let us not forget that after the General Strike, which led to the humiliation of many trade union leaders and the trade union movement in general, the miners remained out for eight months on nothing—no strike pay, nothing. We are dealing with very determined people. We are dealing with people who feel that they have a stake in the country and ought to have a real share in what is going.
Would any noble Lord present in this Assembly this evening deny that the miners' wages are inferior, with all the work that is entailed, including the overtime? That is what the trouble is about —the overtime, the unofficial hours. It is not the ordinary rate of pay: it is the work that they do not want to do but which they must do to keep the pits going. Would any noble Lord deny that their rates are much inferior to the rates which are being paid to building labourers? It is not only the "lump" people. I have seen the advertisements in the Press and I have noticed them on the boardings—£2 an hour for building labourers, £3 an hour for bricklayers. Some of them are boasting that they are earning £150 a week. The miners say, "What about us?" I think the argument runs this way. I do not know whether noble Lords would agree that it is a perfectly impeccable argument, but I venture to use it. The argument runs: "If some sections of the community can get very high wages—much higher than they deserve—why should we suffer low wages? Why do the Government not do something about it? "The fact is that the Government do not do anything about it—nothing at all. They talk of this "lump", as it has been referred to, in the building industry. The Government never do anything about it. The "lump" does not even pay taxes. But it goes on.
Now I want to come to what is the real issue. We are told that there is a crisis. How many crises have I seen since I came into public life! This country has been down and out many

787
times. It was down and out, so it was alleged, after the Boer War; it was down and out after the First World War; it was down and out after the Second World War—but there was always the power of recuperation, and it still exists. Despite what may be said on either side of the political fence, it still exists. I do not agree with some people, economists for the most part. Oh, how I wish we could rid ourselves of these economists! I heard some of them last night on television, arguing with each other. If I may say so with great respect—the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is not present, and I can therefore say it with impunity—the legal profession can see both sides of the coin at the same time. They can argue both ways; they can see both sides of the question. It is the same with these economists. They are just a nuisance. It is far better to use common sense about it. Take the question of the balance of payments. What really is the trouble? We are importing more than we should import—that is the first point—and we are exporting far less than we should because we are using a lot of stuff in this country which we ought not to be using and which ought to go for export. That is what it is all about. I am no economist, but there it is—the whole case. We have got to put that right. How it is to be put right is a matter for the Government, and I do not see that the Government are capable of doing it.
Now I come to one member of the Government, the right honourable Peter Walker—the "whiz kid" of the Government. He is a financial pundit, as we all know. What does he say? "Crisis? No, no—everything in the garden is lovely. There is no trouble at all. Our exports are competitive". I heard him say that last night. He says, "There is no trouble"; and he frowns when he says it, as if the idea that anything is wrong with this country is absurd. Is he not in the Government? He says there is nothing wrong, that there is no crisis. Is there a crisis or is there not? In my view there is a crisis which will pass if we have the common sense and the good will to tackle it. That is my opinion. How is it to be done? You do not do it by issuing Regulations and taking emergency powers which the miners would
788
regard as a threat. You do not warn the miners: you bring the miners together with the Coal Board. Have an inquiry at once. Do not wait—hear the case. Let the country hear the case, though it is not for the country to decide; that is for the Government. If the Government feel that nothing further can be done and can make out a case in support of their attitude, the country will be with them; but the case has got to be made out.
There is one final point—oil. Is the crisis about oil? I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who speaks with such remarkable facility and knowledge. She asked: "Why do we not immediately adopt the rationing system?". I do not know. I do not own a car; it matters nothing to me. They can abolish all the cars so far as I am concerned. But it is a private service and a public service, and must be maintained. Therefore, there must be lubrication. It is the most amazing situation. The Government say, "We have got assurances". They have said this over and over again. Every time we raise the matter they say, "We have got assurances". From where we do not know, but they have got assurances that everything is all right. It is said that the oil will come, that it will flow, and that therefore there is nothing to get excited about. Mr. Peter Walker says this. He says, "The time will come when we have to face it, but at the moment we have no trouble about it; we have assurances." Could we know a little about these assurances? Where do they come from? Why do not the Government come clean about it? I do not think they have any assurances at all; I think it is just a piece of deception. They are trying to work up an attitude of confidence. But if they have assurances and I am wrong, then let them show me where I am wrong. That is a fair point to put to the Government.
There is another point. Is it not an ironical situation, this oil business? I can recall when the first British Petroleum Company was established, arising out of the old shale oil industry in Scotland. I can remember it. I can remember William Fraser, who became Sir William Fraser and then a Member of this Assembly; and I believe his son is now a Member of this Assembly. I remember the Government following the First World War deciding to have a stake in the British

789
Petroleum Company. I think it is 51 per cent., or it may be 49 per cent. But who started this oil business in the Arab States? It was British capital and American capital. The sheikhs never dug for the oil. They had no money and they had no influence. The money was provided by investors from the United Kingdom and investors from the United States of America. Now we are all held up to ransom by these people. What are we going to do about it? Have the Government got the foggiest notion how to tackle this problem? Because if they have they ought to tell us; and if they have not they should tell us, so that we know where we are. Because if they tell us they do not know how to handle the problem then rationing is essential at the earliest moment to conserve what we have.
My Lords, I end by saying this. The Government have introduced these emergency powers for obvious reasons. They have a right to introduce these emergency powers; that I will not deny; that is the Government's responsibility. If no beneficial results accrue the Government will be to blame. If they can persuade the miners to accept the offer of the Coal Board, well and good. It is a matter for the miners. But nobody in this assembly, whether on this side of the House or on the other, has a right to tell the miners what they should do. Nobody has this right. Leave it to the miners to decide. If they do what is wrong, we will suffer and probably they will suffer. If they do what is right it will be in accordance with their convictions and principles —and to that we should take no exception whatever.
5.11 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend Lord Shinwell—I nearly said, "my noble friend 'Manny' Shinwell". When I sit down, I hope that he will be equally glad. The reason I say this is that I remember a long time ago—it always seems a "long time ago" when one is getting on—in the early 1950s being greatly honoured when "Manny" Shin-well (as he then was) invited me to spend a weekend in the Seaham constituency to do some meetings. My Lords, I felt I had "arrived"; because although it has never heel my good luck, obviously, to work in the mines, I had always had a special
790
affinity with the miners. My mining colleagues in another place were grand friends and I had worked in South Wales. I say this because I hope to-night that I have a rational argument; and I am not looking for Communists. Nobody who has known my noble friend Lord Shin-well, in this House or in the other place, would ever deny that he says what he thinks. He says it with vigour and then he is finished with it. I hope to be non-aggressive and non-abrasive—and I am not accusing him of that—and I hope that at the end, whether he agrees or not, he will think I have a rational argument.
I want to-night to make an appeal. I think that there are certain times when one has to say what one really thinks. Sometimes this is difficult. After all, it may be said in the mere 30 days that these Orders are going to last who are we on the Back Benches to think that what we can say is going to have any effect. But this House is a kind House. In this House, too (and I have been in both), we do try to examine matters objectively, and this is what I want to do to-night.
For the first part of what I want to say I have divided my remarks into three very brief sections. For the second part I have taken the main point out of each section and I should like to comment on it. This is the first. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr. Edward Short, speaking on Saturday last, November 10, of Labour proposals for an incomes policy, said that Labour leaders:
"…believed that a statutory incomes policy is unworkable except with a quite unacceptable degree of injustice."
He went on to say:
"We have come firmly to the conclusion that the only credible kind of incomes policy is in effect an effective prices policy in a socially just climate."
He then went on to say that the trade union leaders were responsible men,
"and have the wellbeing of Britain at heart as much as anyone else."
The two points in this section to which should like to return at the end of my speech—because it is easier for me to do it this way and I hope it is easy for Members of your Lordships' House—are the "socially just climate" and the "wellbeing of Britain". Before doing so, I should like to say something about

791
Edward Short. I have known him for 23 years, ever since I got into another place, and I have a great respect for him. I should have thought there was nobody in any part of either House who would not agree that to look at Ted Short is to make evident his complete integrity. That, I believe, is obvious to everybody.
My Lords, I come now to my second section. Stage 3 of the incomes policy, in the opinion of many people (I know that that is a loose phrase, but still I say it) has been designed to allow the miners, and others whose work is particularly awkward and inconvenient, to obtain the maximum increase in pay. I even saw it written the other day, I do not know with what validity, that somebody from the Coal Board had helped to write in the "unsocial hours" part. To the a-political observer, to the non-Party observer, I think it would appear as though this Government came in with a Conservative policy and are now advocating a Socialist one. There is little doubt that many Conservative voters are of this opinion. I think that nobody would deny that any incomes policy inflicts hardships. Nor, I think, would anybody deny that any particularly unjust cases coming to light should be investigated and, if possible, helped or remedied—and I have written the words in red in my notes—"within the policy". I should like to come back to the phrase "within the policy", if I may; and I am now coming to my third section.
My Lords, it would seem that the package offered by the National Coal Board is an effort (shall I say?) to give the miners more than the car workers. We are told—and I have listened to my friends this afternoon—that they were offered an increase of 13 per cent. minimum, with a possible productivity addition of 3½ per cent. and that this has been turned down. I should like to say that if my noble friends on this side say that those figures are not correct, I will accept that.
A NOBLE LORD: They are not correct.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, the other point that I should like to make is that we would all agree that to talk of "average wages" gets nobody anywhere.
792
I want now to come to a more important point. The figures of 13 per cent. and 3½, per cent. have been given, and we can leave them there. But why have the N.U.M. turned them down? The N.U.M. say that this is not enough. They say that what they gained last year has been eroded by inflation and that therefore they have been left behind. They state also (and I have heard this from Mr. Gormley and from Mr. Lawrence Daly) that they are fighting the Government and not the Coal Board. To the outsider, to people not connected with mines, it would appear that inflation did gather speed after the settlement with the miners last year—a settlement in which the public were on the miners' side. I think there is no doubt at all about that. But what helped inflation to gather speed? What helped it gather speed was that the other unions used the award to the miners to bolster up their claims. They all became special cases, too.
The miners believe that their job merits their being at the top of the wages table. If I remember rightly, in 1938, before I even got into another place (the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, can tell me whether I am right or wrong) the miners were complaining—and, although I knew nothing about it, I thought rightly—that they had moved down to 38th in the "league table". The miners believe that their job merits their being at the top of the wages table. I would have a difficult job with my car workers if I were still sitting as the Member of Parliament for Coventry. But Coventry, anyway, is now in the past. I would have thought that the miners' claim is pretty strong. I cannot think of anybody who would want to work down a mine for whatever money he was offered. I think everyone would accept that to be so. Here, of course, I cannot embark on the other aspect of the matter because it would lead us into the whole question of the social values of different kinds of work, which is a problem we are not dealing with to-day.
My Lords, I have said that no one would want to be a miner whatever wages he was paid. Therefore the public would agree that any claim the miners make is a strong one. But so are the claims of the nurses, the firemen, of hospital workers and transport workers.

793
They are all strong cases. The second reason for turning down the offer is because of the Government's policy, and the N.U.M. is determined to bring down the Government, and to bring them down by industrial action.
I should like now to move back to the first section of my speech, and to say something about a socially just climate. I think that a socially just climate must seem at the present time to be the millenneum. It is a very, very long way away, and so long as present attitudes continue, whichever Party is in power in this country it will be equally far away—I would think the lifetime of us all. Anyway, it is a very long way away. A socially just climate! What about the commuters on the railways? What about the passengers in the buses? I sat in a bus for half an hour to-day at Oxford Circus. What about the unions without the power of the "big battalions"? What about the old-age pensioners whose increases are swallowed up by inflation? Does anyone, in your Lordships' House or outside, imagine that the British public, deprived of trains, deprived of buses, deprived of light, deprived of heat, deprived of their holiday, or part of it, because of industrial action at the airports, think that we are anywhere near a socially just climate? I was going to say that we could listen to anybody outside; I expect that we form part of the "people outside" when talking about these things.
My Lords, what about the people with small fixed incomes; not the rich, just those who have worked all their lives and saved for retirement. I expect that some of us are affected; but let us deal with the general public and not ourselves. What about them? I have never heard even lip service for them from any Party. There are millions of such people. What are they going to do? The value of their life savings has gone down—by how much? Is it not 20 per cent.? And shall I say in the last couple of years? Anyway, I know that it has gone down 20 per cent. Never mind the large increases; the smallest increase in wages anywhere does not come to them. This is the effect of the backround. What are they going to do?
Last Monday, my Lords, we heard that on Monday next there is to be a one-day strike by some of the train drivers at
794
Waterloo Station. Yesterday we heard that drivers on London Underground are demanding a series of stoppages. Such action, they claim, would immediately paralyse services. What about the public, my Lords? I do not look only at the Government, I look at everyone in your Lordships' House. What about the public? The public just do not count today anywhere. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this particular case—and for this particular case have gone back to London Transport—or of any other, I think it must be obvious to us all, in this House and outside in the country, and whatever our political views, that we cannot go on like this. I think that that must be accepted.
I do not like saying so, my Lords, and I shall probably get into trouble for doing so, but I always thought that my Party stood for people like these commuters. I always thought that we fought for the weak and the poorly paid, those without union power to hold the public to ransom. In short, I thought that we stood particularly—it is what brought me into the Labour Party—for the ordinary citizen who just gets pushed around. But I have not heard any official condemnation from my side. I was glad to note the speech this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I do not wish to involve the noble Lord, and if I just say I drew comfort from it perhaps that will do. But in all this trouble I have not heard it said—not in public, not as a statement of policy—that these things are wrong. The words are always hedged about to avoid a definite commitment. Is nobody going to condemn this treatment of the public? Is there no one with the courage, whatever side they may be on, to get up and say, "This won't do"? My Lords, can we have any national wellbeing while this sort of thing goes on? I hold no brief for this Government, for the same reason as many on this side of the House. I think that they have offended greatly against the public conscience on land prices, on rents, on food prices, on housing—and so we could go on. But they are the elected Government of this country.
My Lords, what I have been saying has not been easy for me to say, and I hope that I have been relatively agreeable. I have belonged to my Party for 30 years—I know that there are many

795
who have belonged to it for much longer—and it means as much to me as to those of my friends who think differently from me. I believe that at the moment my Party is on the wrong road, just as those of my friends who think differently from me believe that it is on the right road. I think that all of us in this House (I know this to be true of noble Lords on this side) believe that if you think something in your Party is wrong, all you can do is to stay in the Party, if they will have you, and try to get it altered. Do not go out of it and criticise; stay in and take what is coming to you. There are occasions when the wellbeing of Britain is at stake. I would doubt whether there is a man or woman to-day whatever their political Party, who does not realise that that is the case at the moment.
My Lords, we are all politicians, more or less. I think we know that the recent by-elections have shown that the country has no belief in either of the two major Parties. There must be a reason. I think that people have had enough. They believe that they will be pushed around whichever Party is in power. They do not say that one Party is as good as the other; they say that one is as bad as the other, and they ask, "What is the use?" I think we know that. I believe that at the moment there is a crisis. I believe that there is a crisis for Government, for Parliament and for democracy. In short, soy Lords, who is to govern this country: the elected Government, until it is rejected at the ballot box, or the trade unions? It is as simple as that. I would beg my noble friends, on this side of the House, even if they do not agree with me, to realise that this could happen to us: it could happen to any Government. It is a question that has to be decided.
Now, I think this particular Government have brought much of this trouble on themselves but, my Lords, by no means ail of it. I believe that the leaders of the political Parties in another place should stand up publicly in that place arid say that Parliament has decided that industrial action for political ends has reached such a pitch that it must be brought to an end. The other way I think lies anarchy and the destruction of our democratic system. My Lords,
796
if Parliament does not intervene by its leaders in all Parties to say this industrial action has no place in our society, then we shall have no democratic society left at all, much less a socially just one. Therefore I think we should support the Government in declaring this State of Emergency and in moving these Regulations.
5.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I hardly dare speak after that. I have admired the noble Baroness opposite, not least for her hat, but especially for what I consider one of the most encouraging and brave speeches I have heard in an admittedly short time in this House.
It appears to me, as it appeared to Lady Seear, that there are three crises with us at the moment: oil, which we could do precious little about; coal, which we might do a little about, and electricity which we might do a little about. But by far the most important one is inflation. Before 1931, we controlled inflation by staying on the gold standard. That gold standard was rigid and brutal, and created 2 million unemployed people in this country. There are certain well-known Liberal politicians who would make excellent Chancellors of the Exchequer to Mr. Gladstone—and by that I mean Mr. Enoch Powell, who seems to want to go back to the form of gold standard and monetary supply. It seems to me to be much too harsh, too cruel and too unkind.
Since 1961, and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's "Pay pause", all Governments, whatever they have said in Opposition, have finally come round to a statutory incomes policy. It is very easy to be rude about a statutory incomes policy when you are in Opposition: it is very difficult to put one into effect when you are in power. It seems to me a little silly of the Party opposite to advocate just controlling prices and not controlling wages. Inflation is a serious business. As I have said, we cannot control it by the old-fashioned gold standard method, and we have therefore to control it by an incomes policy. This incomes policy is easy: t the end of six months, no increase. That is easy. Stage 2 gets more difficult. Stage 3 tends to have great difficulties in it and a lot of holes; and this is where the people industrial muscle can drive through it.

797
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, was talking about the ordinary public who do not have that industrial muscle. But the members of the National Union of Mineworkers—about whom, basically, we are talking at the moment—are members of the ordinary public. They are sensible, if I may say so; they are very conservative people with a long history of service and hardship, and above all a long history of very close togetherness isolated from other sections of the community because of their jobs, where the pit villages are, and so forth. Therefore it is no use telling the coal miners to do this, do that or do a third thing. They have to be persuaded. And this is what the Government are trying to do in this issue. What they are saying is, "We have the emergency powers in reserve. We do not much want to use them unless we absolutely have to. While we have them in reserve, we will try to persuade the ordinary rank and file of the mineworkers that it is in their interests, as members of the British public, to try to follow this incomes policy. Otherwise, we have anarchy. If we have anarchy, the nurses, the teachers and the poorer members of society and pensioners—all of whom get talked about, though too often not enough is done about them— will go straight up against the wall: somebody will start hitting them with sledgehammers, and they will really suffer. Unless we have this incomes policy, this is what will happen.
Therefore, my Lords, I am going to support the Government hard to-night on these emergency measures because the incomes policy is so important. It is not a case of threatening the miners. I hope that the emergency measures are going to be used sensibly and constructively to persuade people that everybody is in this together, and to try to persuade miners that the attitude of Mr. Gormley (I think it was), who said, "We are not fighting the Coal Board; we are fighting the Government", must be wrong. It is not in their interest this should happen. I have spoken five minutes too long, my Lords, and I will now sit down.
5.37 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on the logic of her speech; it hung together. It was only
798
right and proper that in her conclusion she should give unqualified support to a Conservative Government. That is the logic of what she said. However, I want to help her. I think she ought to bring her alibis up to date. Currently the Conservative Government are not blaming the miners for the inflation. They were up until last year, and they were for their first two and a half years in office. Of course, then the responsibility for inflation was wage induced; it was rapacious demands by the trade unions—they were responsible for inflation—by the exercise of what has been described as the wrong use of democratic power. But, of course, a few months ago—and unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has not yet caught up—they changed the tune. They turned the record over. They do not go along that line now. Now the reason is world prices. So, therefore, Lady Burton's excellent speech was spoiled by just that one point; she got her alibi wrong.
My Lords, I think it is a sign of increasing age that when things happen my mind begins to work as if I have been to the picture before; that I have been here before, listened to it all before. My mind went back vividly yesterday afternoon, when the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, was congratulating the Government over their defeat in the cod war, or from these Benches there were congratulations on their standing up to the miners. I went out and looked up at Mr. Churchill—Mr. Churchill is always invaluable as an aide memoire. He recalled for me what happened with the Baldwin Government. He said, "There we are, defeat after defeat." Never mind how bad things then were, there was always somebody to congratulate. "But, "he said, "of course, there was a bill to be paid." It has taken this country a long time to pay it, and it has not paid it yet.
I ventured yesterday afternoon to brave the titters from noble Lords opposite when I mentioned my own association with the miners and my record as a trade unionist, which happens to be much longer than that of the noble Lord who spoke about his record. I pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I left the Army in 1938 and worked with the Workers' Education Association at a princely salary of £2 18s. 9d. a week. I worked among

799
the clubs which existed in a little township in Staffordshire, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, afterwards represented in another place, which had 100 per cent. unemployment. All the mines had been closed. We had visits from the Duke of Kent and from other members of the Royal Family; and they sent deputations from Eton College. They came to see these wild miners and how they lived. They found them very docile, and attending church on Sundays. They said that the miners were unemployable and would never work again. They were used to heavy manual work; they had arthritis and pneumoconiosis, and nobody wanted them any more. And they did not want them any more, until 1940, when they found them jobs quickly enough. But they found them work not for constructive purposes, not for peace; they found them work for destruction. I very much hope that the jobs they did in the factories which were established on the Cheshire border and Stoke-on-Trent continued after the war.
When the war was over I had the great good fortune to be invited by (and here I am going to use the expression "my right honourable friend") Lord Shinwell to be his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I went to him one afternoon, and he said: "What do you think of this?"—and he showed me the stock figures of coal, which were a war secret. Nobody had ever revealed what the stocks were. It was 11 million tons, with a manpower shortage that was acute, because vast numbers of people had come into the mining industry who did not do one shift a week. I noticed this afternoon that when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—for whom I may say I have a great respect—was bandying with statistics (the trouble about statistics is that you handle them selectively, and when you have as good a mind as that of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, you make what use of them you like) he was selective, but I did not want to interrupt him. He said nothing about the current stock position. My noble friend inherited a stock position of 11 million tons, with an army to be demobilised, being brought back from every quarter of the world, wanting jobs; the reconversion of industry from war to peace. What have the Government got now? They have
800
36 million tons, with 22 million tons distributed. So please do not tell us that this emergency is related to a shortage of coal, or to a possible shortage of coal, because we have seen all this before. Then, again—and here we worry about the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and this brilliant mind of his—does the noble Lord not see the illogicality of this position? Coal likely to run out through men not working overtime. Oil in very great doubt. Emergency for one, but no emergency for the other. It does not hang together.
Yet of course I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and disagree with "my right honourable friend" Lord Shinwell. Of course we are in a crisis. I am something of a Marxist. I do not apologise to anyone for that; many people have been Marxist and anti-Communist. I would not want to live in a totalitarian society. But I recognise the power of the Marxist analysis. This country is reaching the logic of the position, because imperialism is in crisis. It is now over the divide; we have passed into the fates that Marx foretold, into a state of permanent crisis. And the most significant thing that has happened this year, which was a curtain-raiser and a prelude to the troubles in the Middle East, was the meeting of the non-aligned Powers in Algeria—76 of them. It produced no tension. Why should it? We were all preparing for the Royal Wedding. Let us deal with the things that matter!
Let us go back to the start of our troubles in 1956. What led up to them? It was the meeting in Brioni between the great neutralists—between Nehru, Tito and Nasser—and Mr. Foster Dulles at that time thought that to be non-alligned was to be guilty of a crime. So what did he do? He put the poor jittery Eden's head on the block, and put a finish to the support of the Aswan Dam. Khrushchev saw his chance and stepped in and they got the Oswan Dam, this miracle of making the Nile flow in the opposite direction. Incidentally, that produces a few problems, like the dam at Volta. Here were the great neutralists. But, of course, to-day the neutralists have become respectable. There are, as I say, 76 of them. I must say that I found myself greatly amused when I heard my noble friend Lord Popplewell and my

801
noble friend Lord Shinwell, and others, use the word "blackmail". In the name of God, in a capitalist society, to get as much as you can from the product you dispose of, to call that blackmail! I thought that was respectable. How did Harry Hyams amass a fortune of £300 million?—or is it £400 million? Was it by buying something dear and selling it cheap? Or how did the gallant Mr. Peter Walker make £1 million before he was 25? Was it from giving his savings away, or from gambling with somebody else's money?
Again, we talk about equality. I commend a study of this to the noble Baroness. Mr. John Moore, the richest man in England, with £600 million. This is respectable, you see. It is like fox-hunting, so dear to noble Lords opposite. When we hunt the fox it is respectable, but if the fox turned round and hunted us, that would be dastardly. This is why they are such humbugs. But their humbug has been shown up. Feisal and his friends now realise something. They listen to what you have to say, and they say: "It is better to keep a gallon of oil in the ground than to take one of your paper quids for it. Oil may be worth a bit more a decade on. You can paper the wall with your pound. "It does not apply only to oil, but to every commodity.
This, of course, is what is wrong with the Government's policy. They can only make it work if the terms of trade turn to the advantage of this country. From 1951 to 1964, 13 years, they stayed in power because the terms of trade were consistently in their favour. As soon as the terms of trade turned against them, then Mr. Maudling, that intellectual giant, proceeded to do, much more ably, I may say, because he is infinitely more able—he could not be less able—than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, exactly the same thing: he tried to spend his way out of it with a policy of expansion, and he bequeathed to us a deficit of £800 million. The Labour Party, guided by the ghost of Lord Snowdon, a Party of probity and a puritanical Party that really believes and tries to practise, so far as it can, a policy of monetary honesty, turned the balance of payments round and went from the red to the black. And at that moment
802
they estranged the miners, and they estranged all the trade unions.
Let me turn now to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I listened to bits of what he had to say, and I was shocked: and what shocked me was his appalling ignorance. How a man can stand in this place, being as old as he obviously is, and talk such absolute nonsense is beyond me. What is wrong with the Transport and General Workers' Union is not that it is not democratic—it is too democratic. This is the point. The poor general secretary has at every stage to weigh up what his members will take. He often has to do things with which he does not agree. But either you have leadership of the kind shown by the present Prime Minister, which is another name for obstinacy, or you have an honest and intelligent leadership in which you try to govern but in the ultimate the decision rests not with you or with your executive but with what your members tell your executive. If you do not accept that, your executive is out, and so is the leadership. That is basically the problem.
I well remember going with my noble friend Lord Shinwell to a meeting at a time when he was in great difficulties. His policy was to mechanise the pits and as he could, stage by stage, to meet the demands of the miners' charter. Many noble Lords in this House are old enough to remember the conditions at that time. If the miners had wanted, they could have had this nation over a barrel in 1945, 1946, and indeed into the early fifties. The critical point came at Grime-thorpe, because it was proposed to lengthen the stint, and my noble friend went down to Doncaster (and so did I, because the St. Leger was the next week) —and whom did he take with him? Will Lawther?—not on your nelly! Did he take the right wing leaders of the N.U.M.? He took Arthur Homer, the Communist; and that brave little man stood up and faced his own membership and fought for those things that were necessary for the well-being of this country, at a time when the miners were in a position to enforce their power. I well remember a Sunday morning meeting which went on until the evening, and the miners said, "You can starve us to death, but you cannot work us to death."

803
To go back again to what I experienced in North Staffordshire before I joined the Army. I learnt that when you are dealing with miners you are not talking to them, perhaps you are not even talking to their fathers or grandfathers, but you are talking to the echo, to the memory of what successive Conservative and Liberal Governments, to their undying shame, did to the miners in this country when they had not the power to resist. If you can put the case to them logically, get through to them and treat them with respect, it is a different matter. I stood for a constituency which once had miners and mines in it, and I live in such a constituency now outside Stoke-on-Trent, near to one of the very big pits of this country; so I know the miners. Please treat them with respect. They live an isolated, lonely life, and the way they have been treated leads them to believe they are outcasts. They are not outcasts any more, but the memory still hands on.
And please, I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, do not quote phoney statistics at them. If you are going to quote statistics, at least take the trouble to understand what you are saying. Because if you look at a graph of what is offered by the N.C.B., you will find it is spread far too widely. The point was made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that it is only a minority of less than 10 per cent. that will get that 13 per cent. What is really wrong is the Government's policy. For the last few months I have found myself increasingly in agreement with Mr. Enoch Powell. We sat in constituencies side by side. There are many things he has said in the past with which I profoundly disagreed and I have said so, but what he has said about the Government's policy is right. It will not work. You can have a laissez-faire society, in which the pricing system operates—that is to say, where the decision as to whether to work in the mining industry, in a hospital, a "bingo factory", and so on, is left to the individual, and so is the price he can get for his labour. His parents, in turn, can decide how much investment they will put into their child's being trained as a doctor, a dentist, or a teacher against the rewards he will earn.
804
If you interfere with the functioning of the pricing system and you are not absolutely clear about it, then you are bound to run into trouble. It is no accident that, for example, in the Midlands workers are brought in from Ireland to drive buses, but they all want to go to work in the car factories, so there are no buses to take them to work. There are no window cleaners; there are no nurses. In the South-East there are all these other labour shortages, because you have a duality and this mixed system, which is neither one thing nor the other. As a democrat, I happen to believe, as I have said very often, in the philosophy of Nye Bevan—that is, that what our society in the West wants is a mixed society, in which one element, either the public sector or the private sector, must dominate. In a Socialist society which is run by a Labour Government the public sector dominates and the private sector is left free to get on with its work and to operate within the concept of a pricing system, which is either run or runs itself. If you do not do that you can get into a most unholy mess.
That is what has happened. I believe that the Prime Minister is a very sincere, very obstinate but extremely limited man. He did not expect to win the Election. Few people in his Party expected to win the Election; and so he made speech after speech without anyone pulling at his coat-tails and saying, "Wait a minute, Ted; you may be required to honour this cheque next week." So when he went into Downing Street on October 16, 1964, he was met with a battery of Opposition papers, and when he read those, to his horror he found out that neither Mr. Wilson nor Mr. Jenkins had been cooking the books. They had been telling the truth. So poor Ted could not then go back to the Tories and say, "Sorry, Selsdon man is stuffed." He had to start off with Selsdon man in the Industrial Relations Act, although, of course, if his advisers could have got at him they would have warned him what would happen. So for the first year or two you have Ted following through a policy which he was trying to run away from. And now—talk about broken promises!— he has gone completely round in his tracks. In the meantime the situation has become

805
so befuddled that it is like several balls of wool all mixed up together, and every step that he takes makes the next step one stage worse. That is why I say you have the Emergency Regulations today and it is no accident. I say to this House that it is no accident that you have had five Emergencies in three years as against one Labour Emergency in five years. My advice to the Government is, having got the Emergency Regulations through, not to take them off but to keep them on permanently.
I should like to conclude by returning to a theme I have mentioned before.I share with my noble friend Lord Shinwell a belief in the recuperative power of my fellow countrymen—but on one condition, which is that they must be told the truth. In 1940 what they were up against was dead simple—Hitler. Ernest Bevin became Minister of Labour, and the trade unions backed him, and the productive capacity was put into full gear overnight. But now we do not know what we are up against.
In the Communist bloc their philosophy is linked with conservation. They conserve their resources. They do not pump all their oil out of the ground, they hold stocks in reserve. Their productive capacity is strictly linked to this idea, and that is why they have no inflation. In the West, including the United States, it is not a case of conservation, but one of consumption. Here we have a raging, roaring inflation. I have in my hand a packet of credit cards, which I did not ask for, all of them for good money, encouraging me to buy. There is television advertising, and advertising on the radio. And look the newspapers! There is a roaring, raging rise in newsprint. There is the prospect of the Daily Express having to come down to seven pages. I am glad to see their profits halved. This was announced today. That is an act of God!
What of the future? We shall go on until at last there will not be any newsprint left. Therefore what is needed? Mr. Powell is absolutely right in saying there is this vast volume of money putting irresistible pressure on our productive resources. We have run out of labour; the investment has gone into the wrong things. The Government says "growth", not in experts but for home consumption, until of course the pricing mechanism which operates outside this country, but
806
does not operate completely here, brings Nemesis in its train. As Mr. Churchill said, here was this Administration, the most disastrous in our history—he did not know about this present one; but he said that there was a bill to be paid. And so the bill is going to be paid. I do not believe it will be paid by the present Government; the bill will be paid, as all the bills are paid, by the British people.
6.3 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, we on these Benches shall not vote against these Regulations; apart from anything else, they come so frequently that it would be tedious if we constantly had to vote against them. I have been in your Lordships' House for a matter of three years and during that time we have had the presentation of five sets of Emergency Regulations. I am told by my noble friend Lord Champion that this is the longest debate on Emergency Regulations that we have had in your Lordships' House, and the longest speech in this debate has been made by a noble Lord whose name was not on the list of speakers.
LORD WIGG: I was!
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: He was, my Lords, but he withdrew, and then came back on the list at the last moment. I think that in the circles with which my noble friend is well acquainted that is called a "late starter".
It is right that we should have had a longish debate on this matter because this is basically a political problem and one has to put it into its political context. There has been only one speech today that I deeply regretted, and that was the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth. I can see nothing whatever discreditable in being a member of the Conservative Party, or the Liberal Party or the Labour Party. If those Parties did not have members I do not believe that our democratic machinery would be able to work as effectively as it does. If in your Lordships' House, admittedly with a degree of detachment which is not always available in other places, we did not discuss these matters in a political context, the public and Press would be doing so, and I do not believe that that would conduce to the prestige of our Parliamentary machine. I must say that I

807
thought that the noble Viscount's high moral tone began to quaver a little when he started smearing the Labour Party as being under Communist influence. I thought that was a lamentable observation. If, as a comparatively new Member of your Lordships' House, I say that it seemed to me to fall far below the traditions which I have always associated with this House, I hope that I shall be in order.
VISCOUNT HAWORTH: My Lords, may I just point out that I did not say it was? I quoted something from an interview on I.T.V. I make no personal judgment on that at all; I have not the facts. I was particularly careful to say that it was a report. It may or may not be true: I would not know.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, the noble Viscount was particularly careful not to say anything specific, but to indulge in about as discreditable a smear as I think could be possible for a noble Lord to indulge in, and I hope that in further debates in your Lordships' House we shall be able to avoid insinuations of that kind.
I made my maiden speech in this House on the subject of the setting up of the new super-Ministries, as they were called. I was critical at the time of the new mammoth Departments. Looking back, I see no reason to change my mind. Since then the giant Foreign and Commonwealth Office has earned the strongest rebuke from the Government of the United States that I can ever remember. It has incurred the bitter mistrust of Israel without apparently effectively appeasing the Arab States—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he comes to reply, will respond to the invitation from my noble friend Lord Shinwell to tell your Lordships what assurances we have had from the leaders of the Arab countries. Also, so far as I can see, the Foreign Office has signally failed to influence the European Community towards giving real help to Holland, if indeed it even tried to do so. That is not an impressive record achievement for one of the new super-Ministries.
If we turn to the Department of the Environment, we see that the housing figures this year will almost certainly be the worst since 1958. The figures
808
announced yesterday contrast badly with the corresponding period three years ago; and, if I may say so, they contrast even more badly with the 414,000 houses a year for which the Conservative Opposition at the time so severely criticised me when I was Minister of Housing. I am not criticising Mr. Channon. Mr. Channon is an efficient Minister and a very compassionate man. It is the Treasury and the Government's economic policy that are to blame. Remembering, too, the criticisms I had to sustain four or five years ago, I find it ironical to note the remarkable increase in the cost of building houses, the escalation of land prices and the need for record mortgage rates.
The third mammoth Department, the Department of Trade and Industry, has produced the largest deficit in our balance of trade that we have had, even without including that mere trifle of £75 million which appears to have failed to get included in the calculations because of some little industrial dispute affecting computers. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was a bit casual in dismissing this token sum of £75 million. While the Department of Trade and Industry has been running up this record, the borrowing rates to industry and traders, through the Government machinery, have gone up far beyond the modest figure of 14 per cent. used by Sir Hubert Newton in another context. Not surprisingly in all the circumstances we are faced with an emergency.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, discussed for a moment or two in a philosophical way why the Government are introducing these regulations at this stage. I confess, my Lords, that it is tempting to think that these regulations, imposed so soon after the miners' ban on overtime started, are a political manoeuvre to cover up a political and economic failure. After all, as other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Wigg, have said, the stock position to-day is reasonably satisfactory. It is certainly substantially higher than it was at the time of the mining dispute last year, yet last year the State of Emergency came only in February, after weeks of an all-out strike. If the Government had wanted to conserve stocks they should perhaps have declared the State of Emergency a week ago. But that, of course, would have been highly

809
embarrasing with four by-elections last Thursday. Or the Government could have declared it a few weeks hence, avoiding that unnecessary exacerbation of industrial relations which was referred to so movingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
The reason why the Government decided to wait was because they knew that the economic situation was rapidly deteriorating. They wanted to blur the issue. If the situation is so desperate, why not have petrol rationing now? The reason, of course, is that if we had petrol rationing now they could not blame that on the unions in the way that they can blame the coal situation on the unions. And one is tempted, with very great reluctance, to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government are seeking to create a situation in which it can have an Election on the theme of, "Who governs the country?"
I am as sorry as anyone that this winter electric blankets and colour television sets bought with Access cards will not be working—your Lordships will remember the moving advertisement for Access cards: "Access takes the waiting out of wanting".
The Government, who were so unsparing in their criticisms and so prodigal in their promises when in Opposition, have utterly failed to work out a modus vivendi with the trade union movement, and on that point at least I agree with my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry—and I hope she is still my noble friend—in what she said about the Government's failure to achieve a fair society. The truth is, my Lords, that this Government have divided the country to an extent that I have never known before, and they have shown a degree of cynical improvidence which makes Mr. Micawber seem like a far-sighted, meticulous budgetary planner. On the very day that the by-elections were taking place, exactly a week ago to-day—and I am indebted to yesterday's Daily Mail for pointing this out—the Prime Minister made a speech which the Daily Mail described as one of economic euphoria. I ask your Lordships to listen to these words of Mr. Heath:
"I believe that the prospects and opportunities for British industry to-day are more exciting and more solidly based than at any time since the Second World War."
810
Those were the words of the Prime Minister exactly a week before your Lordships' House is discussing the Emergency Regulations.
Yesterday morning, the Financial Times, under the heading, "Wait for the good news", said that last night Mr. Peter Walker was addressing the Insurance Debating Society on the subject "Britain Towards the New Commercial Greatness". Naturally I looked in the Press this morning to see how Mr. Walker handled that situation, which must have been a little difficult for him. I find in The Times, and I quote the words:
"Mr. Walker apparently dispensed with part of the speech prepared before Tuesday's trade figures …".
One really cannot be surprised at that. I have a great liking for Mr. Walker, but I must say that there was very little in the speech which he is reported to have made which gave me any great confidence in the future. Personally the only prophecy about the future which I would venture to make with any confidence is that there is going to be a long and sustained demand for candles, prayer mats and bicycles.
There was certainly very little in Mr. Walker's speech to give any comfort to the man who is paying 18 per cent. On his overdraft; to the housebuilders who are having to borrow housing finance in order to sustain their building programme, or to the building societies which were just looking as though they were getting out of their difficulties. I should like to say at this point how pleased I am that the Government have set up a joint committee with the building societies and if, as I believe, the talks are to take place to-morrow I am sure that all of us will hope that a successful outcome can be achieved.
Like my noble friend Lord Champion I am a democrat, and I have thirty-two years' membership of a trade union behind me. And like my noble friend, whose wisdom is of immeasurable benefit to your Lordships' House, I have no sympathy with any trade union leader —or indeed any local councillor—who sets out to defy the will of Parliament or the Government of the day. That, my Lords, is a game which both sides can play and both sides can lose, but the greatest loser would be our democratic

811
way of life. Having said that, I want to go on to say that I am deeply shocked that so many of our fellow-citizens do not realise how much we owe to the miners and the firemen and the postmen and the ambulance workers until they resort to industrial action.
There is something wrong with an industry which depends upon overtime. How fantastic that one of the most essential industries in this country, one which we are told to-day is absolutely essential, can only scrape along by men working overtime! And when, with nothing to do with Phase 2 or Phase 3 or any other part of the incomes policy, they decide that they will stop working overtime the Government announce that an emergency situation exists. But, my Lords, 700 miners a week are leaving the industry. That is the crisis; that is the emergency; that is the situation that noble Lords opposite have to deal with. It is no good passing regulations and thinking that regulations are going to stop this drain of 700 skilled workers every week away from one of our most essential industries. The Government really are playing about with trivialities and formalities without getting down to the basic problems. Whatever the percentage is (we have been bandying percentages about this afternoon), it is not enough to convince 700 miners a week that it is worth staying in the industry in order to earn it. Until we face up to that situation, the drain away from the industry will continue.
Why are public services in London grinding to a halt? Why is there a lack of social balance in so many parts of our society? I have the good fortune to live in Hampstead. When I first lived there we had a balanced community. It was a pleasant little village. We had rows of working-class houses occupied by postmen and by ambulance workers and all those other public servants who make life so much more tolerable for the rest of us. They have all gone now. The little working-class cottages have Georgian bay windows in them, and they are selling for £25,000 or £30,000, or more; and, of course we have an unbalanced community. We are a kind of a rich man's ghetto, instead of the socially balanced community that we ought to be. I would never stand the slightest chance of getting
812
there now. It was only my good fortune in going there over thirty years ago that enables me to be a citizen of Hampstead at the present time. But we are getting this social imbalance, and this is the basic unease and the basic discontent of many working-class people. We are getting this discontent because the postmen, the bus drivers, the firemen and the teachers cannot afford to live in the inner city areas where their services are required.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was most courageous: he did not like "union-bashing" but he gritted his teeth and courageously went forward and did it. I do not like "union bashing", either, and I deprecate as much as anyone actions of a minority of members of trade unions whose aim I believe is to achieve disruption. But, as I said earlier, I think it is quite monstrous to suggest that that influences the policy of the Labour Party. Although the noble Viscount said that he did not like "union-bashing", I am sorry to have to say that he really was guilty of it. I do not know how many of your Lordships saw the cartoon in the Daily Mirror to-day. It was a picture of a manager apparently talking to the chairman of a company, with a workman sitting in the antechamber, and the manager was saying to the chairman: "He's intelligent, well-informed and understands his rights—a real troublemaker." I had the feeling, when the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was speaking that he had something of that attitude to the trade unions.
But, my Lords, we shall not cure our sickness—for it is a sickness; and a serious sickness—by making either trade unions or the bulk of their members the scapegoats. The guilty men—and we are all to some extent guilty, but the most guilty men of all—are those who are sitting on the Government Benches. They have no solution whatever to the crisis to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, referred. They have lost the confidence of organised workers. They have failed to control the economy by making the most effective use of Government expenditure or by restricting surplus purchasing power in the pockets of private individuals.
We have in this country the must sophisticated, efficient and honourable

813
financial institutions in the world. I wish I could say the same for the manufacturers of this country. They have not been able to provide the capacity which is needed to match up to the Government's proclaimed expansionist ambitions. They have failed the country, just as I believe the Government have failed it. The basic failure is that we shall not be able to afford the standard of living that all of us demand, unless as a nation we can plan our affairs in a way which enables us to buy the raw materials that we do not have and to organise our industry in a way which gives a sense of justice to both workers and consumers. Unless we can do that, my Lords, we shall have recurring crises—and the sixth emergency will be just around the corner.
6.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have had a very wide-ranging debate on these Regulations to-day and we have had some notable speeches. If I might mention in particular the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, it obviously captured the imagination of, and provoked thought from, everyone in this House. This is the first occasion in the three years since the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has come into the House that I have had the opportunity of replying to a speech he has made. I am hound to say that I thought he was at his most dismal to-day he seemed to be filled with gloom about everything. Obviously, I do not want to go into a wide-ranging debate at this time of night, particularly as we have another matter to discuss to-night, but I must say that noble Lords have not sufficiently appreciated what the Government have been trying to do and how far they have succeeded. They have taken all the sad features.
They have not mentioned specifically, for example, the enormous increase in what we have had to pay because of the world rise in prices—but this is a matter we can perhaps more conveniently debate on Tuesday. Nor have they mentioned the extraordinarily good position we are now in to compete in the world at the present time. What my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said was not in any way fantastic, it is the truth: that at the present time our prices are lower, and we are in a better position to compete in the world than
814
we have ever been. Investment has been building up this year and should, according to forecasts, when we can get through our present, immediate difficulties, build up even more next year. Our exports in volume are running at more than our imports, despite the situation last month. This is what we have been working towards, and if noble Lords on the other side all the time persist in being gloomy and decrying the future of this country, we shall be deprived of the success that we have been aiming for. I ask noble Lords to join with us in bending as much as we can towards the task of increasing our exports and balancing our trade.
The real point in this debate is: what has been the purpose of introducing these Emergency Regulations. My noble friend stated what the purpose was. Noble Lords opposite have regarded this with great suspicion. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, who I thought made, as always, an excellent speech, said that he suspected that it was because of the balance-of-trade figures. I must reassure him about that. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said that our introducing the Emergency Regulations at this time was designed as intimidation to miners. The noble Lord also asked: Is there a crisis? He implied that a proclamation should occur only if we were in a full crisis. But a proclamation is made under the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Act of 1964. May I remind your Lordships of what that Act says:
"If at any time it appears to His Majesty"—
this relates to 1920–
"that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may by proclamation (hereinafter referred to as a proclamation of emergency), declare that a state of emergency exists."
That shows the purpose of the proclamation and the reason why we have these Regulations. It is simply because in the view of Her Majesty's Government there have occurred, or are about to occur, events of the nature set out.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? How can he in logic argue that an event is about to occur when 36 million tons of coal have been

815
extracted from the ground and 22 millions tons have been distributed? Twenty-two million tons is a far larger amount than we ever hoped to produce in a year in the 1950s.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not necessarily accept the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, but I am coming to the point that he has made. As my noble friend has said, the fact is that a loss of coal production is happening and it could get worse. As he said, we are losing about 20 per cent. in production this week, and in a couple of weeks' time the loss could well be double that amount. There is also the possibility that we may be affected by the cut in supplies of oil from the Middle East; there is a risk that at any time there may be a breakdown somewhere as a result of the non-availability of electrical power engineers. Thus, with a simultaneous threat of shortage of coal and of oil there is obviously a risk to our supplies, not only of coal and of oil but also of electricity. In these circumstances, surely the sensible thing to do is to conserve our stocks as far as possible. The object of introducing the powers is, first, to enable the Government not only to take action to economise in the use of fuel but to make manifest to the public that economy is needed; and, secondly, to enable the Government to take, without delay, any further action that may be necessary.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to give way? I distinctly read out the section of the 1964 Act, and under Section 36(2) there are powers permanently to use the Forces in any crisis, without an emergency being proclaimed and without 40 different regulations.
LORD DRUNIALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend explained very carefully that for the time being at any rate there is no intention of using the vast number of the powers contained in the Emergency Regulations. As I have said, the Regulations are in the form in which they were introduced on the last occasion, with the exception of water and sewerage, as my noble friend made clear. May I also tell the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his absence, and in response to the intervention during my noble friend's speech, that the provision on trespass is
816
in exactly the same form as it has been in recent years. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that Regulation 25, concerning the supply of medicines, is not new. It is in exactly the same form as the Emergency (No. 2) Regulations approved by this House on August 9.
These are the purposes for which the Government are introducing the Regulations. As my noble friend has said, on the last occasion we were criticised for taking action too late; on this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Champion, tells us that we have been precipitate. But without emergency powers there can be no interference in the public interest with the ordinary rights of the public or statutory duties of the public corporations. This is right, and is as it should be, but it is not the purpose of the emergency powers to push people around. In her excellent speech the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, said that people were being pushed around, and I am saying that is not the purpose of taking the powers. Without the emergency powers the electricity corporations could well be in default of their obligations. Regulation 17 of the Emergency Regulations allows the electricity boards to fall short of their obligations to provide electricity and to maintain in accordance with the standards prescribed. Regulation 21 provides necessary powers to regulate or prohibit the supply or consumption of electricity to ensure supply to the most essential needs.
As for oil, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that we do not need Emergency Regulations in order to introduce oil rationing. That may be true, but the Government would need powers from somewhere and they would be able to introduce oil rationing, if they so wished, under the Regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked who it was who gave the assurances about oil. The noble Lord will not expect me to reply to that; he knows very well that it would not be in the interests of this country, or indeed of the people who gave the assurances.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has misrepresented me. What I suggested was that there were no such assurances at all. I suggested that if the noble Lord wanted to prove that I was

817
wrong he would tell me where the assurances came from. I assert that there have been no such assurances at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to assert anything he likes. One of the oldest ways of extracting information is to assert something and then invite a denial. I have told the noble Lord that it would not be in the interests of this country to give that information.
My noble friend Lord Onslow placed emphasis on persuasion in the settlement of the two examples of industrial action, short of a dispute which could bring about the events—and I hope very much they will not—which would have the result of depriving large numbers of people in this country of warmth, light, heat and possibly many other things as well. I very much hope that these disputes will be settled by negotiation. I see the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is departing from the Chamber. May I say that to him, as he is on his way, just as I hope that oil will flow freely again, even if more expensively, as a result of negotiation. The noble Lord asked what are our plans and how are we to get the oil. We had a debate on the longer term implications of this question very recently indeed; but in the shorter term to get the oil flowing again must obviously be a matter of agreement between the parties. I must say that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow that the emergency powers were taken only to be used as a reserve weapon if the miners will not listen to reason, although I very much hope that reason and moderation will prevail. It is relevant that we shall be debating the counter-inflation Orders on Tuesday, since the purpose of those Orders is to contain inflation in a way that is fair and just to all. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made a great point of fairness and justice, and this is exactly what we are aiming at.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, asked for the miners to be treated with respect. He made a most interesting speech in which he re-wrote history in his own way (as we are often apt to do) but I can assure him that the miners are being, and will be, treated with respect. The National Coal Board's offer amounts to nearly 13 per cent. overall. I quite understand his point, but this offer represents £44 million and it is important to remember
818
that the National Coal Board is trying to reach agreement on the basis of what they are permitted under the counter-inflation legislation. Within limits the offer is negotiable; they can do the same as any other representatives of employees and employers and negotiate within the limits of the counter-inflation policy. I submit to your Lordships that that is fair and just. In his speech my noble friend said that the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board would be meeting today. I understand that this meeting—and I quote—"went quite well". I hope, therefore, that we may look forward to a further meeting next week, and that the negotiations will proceed as well as they seem to have clone on this occasion.
My Lords, as for the electricity workers' dispute, there again the talks are continuing and it is the earnest desire of the Government that a settlement should be reached within the terms of its counter-inflationary policy. It would be quite wrong for your Lordships to think that we are taking these emergency powers on the basis that these negotiations are not going to be successful. We are taking powers on the basis that the negotiations may not be successful, and if they are not it will be a great disaster for this country. That is why we are taking them now, so that we can have the powers we need. I hope your Lordships will give support to them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
6.42 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (Loin) ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before introducing it I should like to apologise to your Lordships who are taking an interest in this Bill for the fact that we have started somewhat late. This has been inevitable owing to the emergency and the introduction of the Emergency Regulations. It has also been an emergency for the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who has now to speak a second time this afternoon.
My Lords, it has become something of a tradition, and one which I am sure we should welcome, that legislation on the

819
vital subject of road traffic is introduced in this House. The earlier Bills on this subject are now part of the fabric of history, and it is fascinating to observe in the debates of the Edwardian period a mixture of things which now belong to the past, such as impossibly low speed limits, 12 miles per hour from 1895 to 1903, and problems that are still with us, such as the growing density of traffic and the noise and pollution which it causes. The control of motor vehicles and of their social and environmental effects is now a major sphere of central and local government activity. We have come an incredible distance from the days, not 70 years ago, when an official could note on a file about complaints of noise from motor buses:
"On the whole, I doubt if they are as much nuisance as barrel organs."
The Bill which I now commend to your Lordships fully reflects the multifarious aspects of road traffic and the sophistication of the legislation to which it gives rise. It has no single unifying theme. It consists of a number of more or less radical amendments of existing legislation, and by this means it packs into a relatively small compass some very important reforms. A major part of the Bill makes provision for better means of enforcing certain parts of the road traffic law. Clauses 1 to 5 and Schedule I deal with owner liability, and Clauses 7 and 22 deal respectively with certain extensions of the fixed penalty system and an owner's duty to give information, and with the payment of the charges for vehicles removed from the roads.
First, the Bill provides for the registered owner of a vehicle to be liable, in addition to the driver, for certain minor stationary road traffic offences for which fixed penalty notices have been issued, and also for the offence of failing to pay an excess charge incurred at a parking meter. The fixed penalty system has been in existence since 1960 and it is now generally adopted by police forces throughout the country. It enables drivers who commit minor traffic offences to discharge their liability to conviction by paying a fixed penalty within 21 clays as an alternative to being prosecuted. In the past 13 years it has been widely accepted by the public. It has not only saved the police and the courts a vast
820
amount of work, but it has meant that a level of enforcement could be maintained which would not otherwise have been possible.
In recent years, however, its effectiveness has progressively declined because increasing numbers of people do not pay and persistently evade police inquiries. Most fixed penalty notices are issued when vehicles are unattended. If payment is not made, the police have to make inquiries through registered owners in order to trace the drivers. This has involved a considerable and growing burden of work for the police and traffic wardens. Many cases now go by default because drivers cannot be identified in time for proceedings to be taken. Many of these drivers are, in fact, themselves the owners.
The numbers involved are now considerable. About 2½ million fixed penalty notices were issued in England and Wales in 1972, but payment was made in only 64 per cent. of these cases, and then only after police inquiries, often prolonged, had been necessary in half of them. In the Metropolitan Police District alone, about 340,000 cases could not be prosecuted within the six months the law allows. Similar difficulties arise when excess charges are not paid. The introduction of owner liability to deal with this problem has been widely canvassed and carefully studied. Although in the last analysis an owner will be held liable, the provisions are structured in such a way as to minimise that possibility. The Bill preserves the basic liability of a driver. Where an owner is not a driver, it is only in special circumstances that he becomes liable. These are where he cannot persuade a driver to pay, or to sign a statement accepting liability.
Clause 1 and Schedule 1 together prescribe the arrangements for certain fixed penalty offences. The provisions are limited to offences alleged in respect of stationary vehicles. These are parking and waiting offences, lighting offences at night, and the offence of failing to display a valid vehicle excise licence. The Bill applies only to these offences where, first, a fixed penalty notice has been issued and, second, the driver has not paid within the period allowed. It does not take away a driver's liability but, where a fixed penalty notice has been issued for one of the prescribed

821
offences and where it has not been paid, it enables the police to serve a notice on the owner telling him he will be liable. This notice requires the owner to do one of three things within a prescribed period. He must either pay the fixed penalty, or secure its payment by someone else, or furnish the police with a statutory statement. If he, or anyone else, pays the fixed penalty, no further action will be taken against the driver or the owner. If payment is not made, he must comply with the notice by furnishing the statutory statement of facts under Schedule 1. If he fails to do either of these things, he can expect to be prosecuted for failing to comply with the notice. Clause 2 provides for the same procedure to apply in the case of excess charges.
Clause 3 deals with the position of hired vehicles and provides that the hirer shall be deemed the owner, for the purposes of these particular provisions, so long as the requirements in the clause are met. This provision recognises the different position in which the registered owner of a hired car stands. While it is reasonable to expect registered owners generally to exercise some degree of responsibility over the use of their cars, whether by family, friends, or employees, the owner of a vehicle hired out for a short period (defined in the Bill as less than six months) cannot be expected to exercise this sort of control over a hirer, despite the elaborate checking procedures which responsible vehicle-hire firms carry out.
The transfer of liability from owner to hirer is not, however, automatic. On the one hand, the hirer must sign a statement, called in the Bill a statement of liability, acknowledging that he will be treated as the owner for the purposes of the Bill. On the other hand, the firm must certify that the vehicle was on hire and furnish these two statements, plus a copy of the hiring agreement. If this is properly done, the police or local authority will serve a notice on the hirer who will from then on be treated as the owner for these purposes. This scheme has been discussed with and accepted by representatives of the vehicle hire trade. The Government believe that the scheme I have outlined will be an effective and a fair means of reversing the deterioration
822
of a highly advantageous system for dealing with the volume of minor road traffic offences. It will encourage compliance with the law, and so the law-abiding driver stands to gain a good deal from its successful implementation.
Clause 7 extends the fixed penalty system and owner liability to the new offence, under Clause 6 of the Bill, of stopping a vehicle at an urban junction. I shall have more to say about that in a few minutes. The clause also enables the fixed penalty system to be used in enforcing bus lane orders against drivers of offending vehicles. The effectiveness of bus lanes as a means of improving public transport services partly depends on effective enforcement, and the clause also extends the duty of an owner to give information about a driver's identity to breaches of experimental traffic orders, which are the means by which bus lanes are usually introduced.
Clause 22 provides a new power for the police and local authorities to retain in their custody vehicles which they have removed from the roads, until the statutory charges which are payable for the removal and storage of a vehicle have been paid. The police are empowered to make these charges for the removal of vehicles which are parked in contravention of the law. The charges are made to cover the cost of the operation, and are quite separate from any fixed penalty or fine which may be payable in addition because an offence has been committed. Many drivers, however, do not pay willingly, either when collecting their vehicles or later after further requests for payment have been made. The police have then to take legal proceedings to enforce payment, and this is a procedure which absorbs a great deal of time and money, both for the enforcement authorities and for the courts. The problem is greatest in London; the Metropolitan Police remove about 80,000 vehicles a year, but, despite all their efforts, there are about 11,000 cases in which the charges due are never collected. We estimate that having this power will save up to £50,000 a year in police administrative costs alone; it will considerably reduce the difficulties of collection; and, by taking away the opportunity for drivers to evade payment, it will restore a good deal of the value of

823
removal as a deterrent to unlawful parking.
Clause 6 is the first of the road safety provisions in the Bill. There is a very serious problem with accidents at junctions in urban areas, in which parked vehicles interfere with drivers' view of the road. In 1972 there were 6,000 casualties in urban areas to which vehicles parked at junctions were reported as contributory. These accidents were widely dispersed and not confined to any one class of road. We have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to introduce a general prohibition on stopping and waiting at urban junctions. The ban will be implemented following wide consultations to settle the actual details. I can, however, outline some of the main exceptions that will apply. The clause itself excludes from the ban the situations where a vehicle stops as a result of traffic, or to obey a traffic direction, or in an emergency. It makes provision for various exemptions, such as to provide places for loading and unloading in streets which have very closely spaced intersections, and for the police to give dispensations on particular occasions.
Clause 8 is more significant for the future than may appear at first sight. Its formal purport is to replace the power which local authorities now have to engage in, and spend money on, various road safety functions, with a statutory duty to attend to road safety. This proposal is made in the context of the reorganisation of local government which takes effect on April 1, 1974, when a number of functions will be taken over by the new counties. The new duty of local authorities includes not only the traditional educational and publicity activities of road safety officers but also the investigation of accidents, and the minor highway improvements which this investigation may show to be necessary. This clause thus points the way to a more important place for road safety in the operations of local government, and to its closer integration with the planning and improvement of highways. The Government believe that in the long run this will pay large dividends in safer roads.
Clause 9 will rectify deficiencies in powers to make regulations on vehicle lighting, and at the same time removes the anomaly that detailed provisions on
824
lighting equipment, alone of vehicle equipment, are in main legislation. Clause 10 and Schedule 2 enable the Secretary of State for the Environment to bring in a compulsory scheme of type approval for all vehicles. A type approval system is an important step forward in the application of standards relating to safety and pollution. Before a manufacturer brings a new model on to the market, he has to provide a sample for approval, and he must then supply, with each one that is sold, a certificate that it conforms in the relevant respects with the approved prototype. The testing will be supervised by the Department of the Environment, which proposes to charge fees to cover the cost of the scheme. Type approval will apply equally to imported vehicles. There are similar schemes in operation in other countries, and, where there is a bilateral agreement, type approval in one country is valid in another. A voluntary scheme is already in operation here, to provide our exporters with type approval to E.E.C. standards. The clause also contains powers to introduce type approval of component parts of vehicles.
Clause 11 removes defects in the present law on sale of second-hand vehicles. Clause 12 and Schedule 3 affect all holders of driving licences, both present and future. The present position as regards medical conditions which may affect fitness to drive is that they have to be declared on the application form when obtaining a driving licence for the first time, and on renewing it every three years. This system has two defects. First, there is no obligation on a licence-holder to tell the licensing authority if he develops a disability during the period of a licence. This means that he might have the misfortune to lose an arm or a leg one month after renewing his licence, but would be under no obligation to declare this for another two years and eleven months. Second, the Secretary of State, as licensing authority, does not have sufficient powers to inquire into the nature of any disability which may affect fitness to drive. The medical provisions of Schedule 3 close these gaps. We feel justified in seeking these powers in the interests of road safety. While the great majority of drivers modify their driving habits to take account of any disability, it is right to strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State to consider such cases.

825
The other proposal on driver licensing is to issue new and renewal licences which would normally remain current until the holder is 70, instead of for three years only, as the present law requires. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Monck for asking me to make clear what happens when one reaches the age of 70 and afterwards. I am delighted to tell him that thereafter renewal will be at three yearly intervals, as at present, and will be free. This proposal has been the subject of extensive consultations with many bodies interested in road safety, and the majority have supported this change.
There will be substantial savings, not only in form-filling for the public, but in paperwork within the central licensing system. We now have approaching 20 million licence-holders, which means nearly 7 million renewals each year, quite apart from the issue of provisional licences and new full licences. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea, which takes over renewal of licences this month, will probably be the largest computer organisation in Europe, and its planning offered a unique opportunity to re-examine the procedures. It emerged that if Parliament would dispense with the need for three-yearly renewals in the vast majority of cases, up to 350 staff and £1 million a year in staff costs and postage could be saved. There are of course provisions for some licence-holders to be treated differently. In particular, a licence could be limited to three years or less on medical advice, so that the driver's medical condition could be reviewed at appropriate intervals.
I think your Lordships will welcome Clause 13. Overloading of goods vehicles is not only dangerous; it causes considerable damage to roads. A great deal of work has been done to develop methods of checking the weight of lorries so as to enforce the limits imposed by the regulations. As this proceeded, it became evident that the Secretary of State would need power to specify the methods of weighing and the tolerances appropriate for this purpose—which may be quite different from those relating to the traditional use of weigh-bridges for verifying quantities of goods. This clause will permit the introduction of transportable weighing devices, which
826
record the weight of each axle as the vehicle is driven over them. It will thus strengthen enforcement of legal weight limits and make it easier to prosecute offenders.
Clauses 14 and 15 contain provisions which would allow the Secretary of State to introduce schemes for licensing people under 21 to drive heavy vehicles, within the framework of a professional training scheme. The scheme which is immediately in prospect is to train young drivers of heavy goods vehicles, and the power to reduce the minimum age for their vocational licences is in Clause 14. Clause 15 would enable the Secretary of State to make similar provision for a reduction in the minimum age for driving buses. If such a scheme were introduced, it might be on somewhat different lines—for instance it might have to have regard to E.E.C. requirements—but it would equally contain safeguards against the risks of licensing inexperienced drivers to use large and heavy vehicles.
Quite apart from fears of a growing shortage of heavy goods drivers, a properly drawn up and controlled training scheme is increasingly necessary for a healthy road transport industry, and will lead to a general improvement in standards. The scheme would provide for a course under qualified instructors, with trainees graduating from smaller to larger lorries—subject to passing the very exacting heavy goods vehicle driving test. This scheme has been discussed at length with both sides of the industry, and both are in favour of it. It is in line with the relevant E.E.C. regulation, and there is every reason to think that the details can be agreed with the Commission.
Clauses 16 to 19 of the Bill propose to amend the existing law in a way which will create a more flexible system of bus licensing adapted to present-day circumstances—and designed, in particular, to help rural communities with their transport problems. The Bill makes it possible for lifts to be given in cars, against payment, without any risk of falling foul of bus licensing requirements. Minibuses, with up to 12 seats, which are privately used, will also be freed from these requirements. Minisbuses operating commercially will still be subject to public service vehicle licensing—concerned with the fitness of both vehicle and operator to provide a service carrying passengers for hire

827
or reward. But they will be exempt from the need to have a road service licence where they neither carry passengers on journeys in an urban area, nor run on an existing bus route in competition with a conventional service. This change will open the way for more informal services, by minibuses in country areas which are without conventional bus services or are inadequately served by them. The Bill also widens the scope for granting permits for other kinds of journey by minibus. And the criteria for granting road service licences themselves are also made more flexible, greater emphasis being placed on the interests of the public than under present legislation.
Clause 20 and Schedule 4 to the Bill contain powers on licensing of goods vehicle operators. The first few years' operation of Part V of the Transport Act 1968 has shown up some minor weaknesses in the system and in the powers conferred on licensing authorities. It is these weaknesses which the Government are proposing to remedy in this clause and Schedule, by relatively minor amendments to current law which will be welcomed by all responsible elements in the industry itself.
Clause 21, which refers to recording equipment, is in fact concerned with the tachograph, which provides an automatic record of journeys by heavy goods vehicles in place of manual record-keeping. Tachographs are not yet widely used here, but they become compulsory under E.E.C. regulations, in 1976 for new vehicles and in 1978 for existing ones. What the Government propose is to introduce a voluntary scheme in 1974. This has two advantages: those who fit the current models of tachograph before 1976 will gain useful experience in their use; and they will be able to defer until 1980 the fitting of a more complicated and expensive type specified by the E.E.C. This clause permits the substitution of these automatic records for the records which drivers have to fill up and provides for inspection and testing of the equipment. The type approval of tachographs is covered by the provisions of Clause 10 on component parts of vehicles.
Clause 23 requires that motor insurers who write compulsory third-party policies in the United Kingdom should be members of the Motor Insurers' Bureau. The
828
functions of the Bureau are, first, meeting claims in respect of compulsorily insurable liabilities against uninsured drivers, and making payments to victims of untraced or unidentified drivers; and, second, operating the international green card system. Most insurers already belong, and it seems wrong that these important functions should rely on voluntary membership.
In Clause 24 and Schedule 5 we are taking the opportunity to revise and rationalise the maximum penalties for a wide range of road traffic offences. This revision, which chiefly affects the penalties that may be imposed in the magistrates' courts, has two main aspects. First, the Bill increases the maximum fines which may be imposed on summary conviction for a large number of offences. Second, it removes from the magistrates' courts the power to send offenders to prison for road traffic offences, with the single exception of driving while disqualified. This clause and Schedule are very important, but I have spoken at some length and I think that I shall do better to leave this subject to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, when he comes to wind up the debate at the end: he can deal with it in greater detail than I can as he knows far more about it. Clause 25 is consequential upon the changes in fines, and maintains the present position as regards the jurisdiction of courts in Scotland. Clauses 26 and 27 contain provisions on interpretation, commencement, and other technical matters.
This short Bill contains a formidable amount of important legislation. That is not to say that it covers everything that noble Lords might have hoped to see: rather it contains those matters to which the Government, after clue consideration, attached the highest priority. My colleagues and I will listen with attention to the views that are expressed this afternoon, both on the contents of the Bill and on other related matters which it does not touch. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Aberdare.)
7.6 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the way in which he has introduced this Bill. He has covered a number of points. I must admit that he

829
did it at such a rate that it made it difficult for me, with my limited intellect, to follow him completely. Nevertheless, he has gone through it all; it is on the Record, and I shall be able to read it.
He referred to the fact that this is my second appearance at this Box to-day. To listen to me once is more than enough; to have to listen to me twice is imposing a heavy punishment on the House. However, I shall try to be reasonably brief. This is very much a hotch-potch of a Bill which seems to have in it so many things that were inadvertently left out of previous Bills. It also has some things in it which have been brought to light by the inability of the authorities to enforce some of the previous legislation—though it is none the worse for that. There are some things that are new and that, although perhaps not revolutionary, will nevertheless require careful examination.
Clauses 1 to 5 appear to me to be unexceptionable in so far as they give effect to something we pressed for in our debate on London traffic control on February 17 last. That debate followed the publication of the second Report of the Expenditure Committee of another place on Urban Transport Planning, the Hall Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, told the House the figures of the failures to secure payment of the fixed penalty payment. I will not repeat them, but those figures are indeed startling, and it is time something was done about the matter. The case for keeper liability—the technical term—was certainly made out before the Hall Committee. I accept completely the necessity for the purpose behind these clauses, but I wonder whether there is any real need for owners to be relieved of any liability if they are able to furnish the chief officer of the police with the statutory statement of facts as mentioned in the clause, or whether we ought not to expect the owner of the vehicle himself to collect from the driver the amount of the fixed penalty and pay the penalty himself. After all, in the vast majority of cases the driver must have been using the car with the owner's permission. The procedure embodied in these clauses will undoubtedly result in a considerable increase in the amount of paper work falling on the police. That is to be deplored, but I suppose that all this is a part of our tenderness towards offenders
830
against the law and of our falling over backwards to be scrupulously fair, and more than fair.
Clause 6 seems to me to be a reasonable power to vest in the Secretary of State, but of course we shall have to consider the regulations that flow from the clause. Clause 7 seems to me to be to some extent machinery. The noble Lord has told us that the fixed penalty procedure will be applied to bus lane orders. This is, I suppose, a step in the right direction, but Mr. Hunt, in his evidence to the Expenditure Committee, stressed the difficulty of the enforcement of the law on bus lanes, and suggested that powers should be given to the police to employ traffic wardens on bus lane enforcement. The question I have to ask is: has anything been done about that suggestion; and, if not, might this Bill he a suitable vehicle for bringing it into effect?
My Lords, the first part of Clause 8 adds a little to Section 38 of the Act of 1972, making it mandatory on local authorities to prepare and carry out measures designed to promote road safety. But under the remainder of what is to be added to the 1972 Act there is to be a considerable extension of the duties of local authorities, and one wonders what is intended here. Is it the case that in future we shall see two bodies, the police and the local authorities, carrying out an identical investigation into the same accident? This would seem to me to be implied by what is contained in this clause.
There is just one other point in this connection that I feel I ought to mention. It was brought to my attention by a local authority association. County councils are now the authority for road safety. District councils used to be, and there was considerable justification for the fact that these powers rested with districts. I am not asking that we should do anything to upset the Local Government Act 1972, but I would urge upon the Government that if a district asks for agency powers under the Local Government Act and such a request comes to the Government as an appeal by the district council against the decision of the county council, then they will give some sympathetic consideration to that application. I ask no more than that, but it is a point that has been brought to me by a local authority association.

831
For the sake of safety on the road and of road users, Clause 10 provides a suitable extension of the system of official approval of vehicles and their component parts; and it applies to all vehicles and is not, as hitherto, confined to goods vehicles. This is a considerable step in the right direction, and the mark of approval which I take it will be applied to these vehicles, and to the component parts mentioned, will I think ensure that we shall have higher standards of safety in our vehicles. Clause 11 seems to me to be a well worth while extension of the prohibition on dealing in unroadworthy vehicles, and it appears to me to be the blocking up of a discovered loophole. I can well imagine that plenty of this has in fact occurred, and that it was a loophole.
I am fairly sure that Clause 12 will receive a fairly wide welcome, but I am far from clear as to how the new law will apply to applicants over 70–or at least I was until the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made his speech and told us of his exchange with the noble Viscount, Lord Monck. As I understand it, the noble Lord has covered the point of my difficulty. He has given me the additional information that my future driving licences will be issued for three years because I have passed life's allotted span; and he has also given me some information that I had not seen anywhere else—and I hope he meant it; that is, that in future I shall not only get my driving licences for three years but get them free. This I understood the noble Lord to say, and for that I am truly grateful.
Clause 13, the clause which deals with the weighing of vehicles, may be an important one from the point of view of the owner and the driver. Clearly, what will be important in this connection will be what is in the regulations. I know that the Transport and General Workers' Union have expressed concern over the number of commercial vehicle drivers who have been prosecuted under the existing regulations dealing with gross axle weights. It appears to me that it is possible for a driver to distribute his load over the entire vehicle in order to be within his gross maximum weight but that the situation may arise where one axle may still be over the prescribed limit and the driver has no means of checking it.
832
The solution proposed by the union is that vehicle owners should be compelled to fix axle weight mechanisms which would enable the driver to check and, if necessary, adjust the load in order to conform to the regulations. My Lords, I feel that we may have to return to this matter when we go into Committee on the Bill, but perhaps the noble Viscount may be able to tell us a little more about it when he comes to reply to this debate to-night.
The proposals in Clauses 14 and 15 to lower the age for the grant of a driving licence for heavy vehicles to 18 is one which, understandably, has caused some disquiet. I am bound to say that I am not too sure what is intended here, despite the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Does it amount to this: that a young person aged, say, 19 who has attended a course under the Road Transport Industry Board and who passes the necessary test will be able, even though he has not attained the age of 21, to secure a licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle or a public service vehicle? Will this in fact work in this way or is it merely intended under the regulations to be made under these clauses that a young person will be able to drive on the road only as a part of his instruction under the supervision of a suitable instructor, this in readiness for driving heavy vehicles on attaining the age of 21?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I just reassure the noble Lord? It is a graduated process between 18 and 21, with a full training programme. If a person passes the requisite tests he will be able to drive lorries of gradually heavier sorts until he is 21, when he can drive the really large lorries.
LORD CHAMPION: So it will be a graduation throughout the whole of the period, and he will go upwards from class to class?
LORD ABERDARE: That is right.
LORD CHAMPION: And he will not be able to drive the heaviest of vehicles until he attains the age of 21. Is that it?
LORD ABERDARE: On his own, yes.
LORD CHAMPION: That clears up the doubts that I had about this matter. I ought to say here that the Transport and General Workers' Union, having

833
looked at the first clause and the second one relating to bus drivers, say,
"We accept this clause, in that this facilitates the operation of the agreed driver-apprentice scheme".
So obviously there have been consultations which have brought about this agreement.
My Lords, the final clauses to which I wish to refer, at a little length, are Nos. 16 to 20, and to these we shall have to devote a lot of time in Committee. I am of the opinion that the public service vehicle licensing system has served the country and the industry fairly well, and that we ought to approach changes to that system very cautiously indeed. There are a number of things upon which the Opposition will have to be satisfied before we shall be prepared to part with this clause. These can be summarised briefly as: arrangements for passenger safety and protection, and adequacy of insurance cover for passengers in private cars; that the effect of any changes will not be such as seriously to injure existing operators who are providing regular services; that the employment standards are not worsened by these clauses and what will flow from them; and that the competition of mini-buses will not be permitted in areas where they are not needed, such as in competing with established services in densely-populated areas. I might also mention that the appropriate trade union is disturbed about Clause 21. It fears that the recording equipment will give a very inadequate indication of the driver's work. To that aspect we shall return. I will not mention the remaining clauses of the Bill. Clearly, we shall have to devote some time to them in Committee. I have been saying that we are not opposed to this Bill; indeed we welcome it, but we shall try very hard to improve it when we get into Committee.
7.21 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, as the noble Lord who opened this debate made clear to us and as is apparent from a glance at the Bill, it will be seen that it has no general theme. It is a collection of measures, matters no less important on that account; but there is a danger in a Second Reading debate that one may be accused of making points which are substantially Committee points. I shall not attempt to review the whole of this Bill
834
this evening. What I should like to do, and I hope it will be helpful to do so, is to draw attention to three aspects of the Bill to which my attention has been drawn. These may be matters which we shall want to take up in Committee and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, may think it useful if I mention them, if I put up a marker against them, so that he will have an indication of what, at any rate, I may wish to bring up on Committee.
May I say a few words about Clauses 1 to 5? Those are the clauses which introduce this new system by which fixed penalty offences can be made the responsibility of the owner as opposed to the driver. I am sorry that these provisions—and I have no doubt that it was difficult to work them out—do not appear to catch either the person who to-day has diplomatic immunity (and we know of the large number of offences committed by people in that position) or the owner or the driver who is a visitor from abroad. I think that it is a pity that the Government—it may have been impossible to manage it—have not been able to devise some scheme to catch those two categories of people.
May I ask a question on Clause 1(2)? That is the provision whereby, in certain cases, a chief officer of police can serve a notice on a person whom he has reason to believe is the owner of a vehicle requiring him to do certain things. The question is this. Is there any time limit during which the police have to serve that notice? They cannot serve it until the 21 days on the original notice have expired, but there appears to be nothing in the Bill to indicate any time limit on the serving of a notice on a presumed owner. Secondly, from what time does the time limit for prosecution begin to run? I take it that the time limit will be the ordinary time limit of six months. Can the noble Viscount tell us from what date it is intended that the time limit of prosecution shall begin to run? Is it from the date of the original alleged offence or from the date of the issuing of a notice to a presumed owner or from the date when the presumed owner fails to comply (if he does so fail) with the notice? There appears to be nothing about this in the Bill at present. It would appear possible to issue that notice at any time; indeed, it might be years after the event.

835
Continuing with Clause 1, I have some doubts about the remainder of this clause. As I understand it, in the case of certain fixed-penalty offences, where a notice which has been given to the person or attached to the vehicle has not been complied with (and nobody has paid the penalty) the police can serve the notice on the person they think is the owner. Under that notice he has a choice either of paying a fixed penalty or of furnishing this statutory statement as to whether or not he is the owner. If he is not the owner he is required to state who is the owner. What happens if he fails to comply with that requirement? As I understand it—and the noble Viscount will I hope correct me if I am wrong—if he does nothing at all about it he can be prosecuted for having failed to comply with the notice and is liable to a penalty of £100. Alternatively, as I understand it, if he does nothing about it and makes no return then, if proceedings are successfully brought against him for the alleged offence, it is then to be conclusively presumed in those proceedings that he is the driver.
Under one of the clauses of the Bill it is made clear that the notice can be served on the presumed owner either by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it by post to him; and he is then required to comply with that notice within the specified period of 21 days. Let us suppose that he is on holiday or is away from home or does not receive the notice. Then under subsection (4) if he is prosecuted simply for failing to comply with the notice, he is entitled to be acquitted if he can offer a reasonable excuse for not having complied. If, on the other hand, the police decide to prosecute him for the original offence, as if lie were the driver, he is not entitled (as I understand it) to say, "Oh, no. I was not the driver." He is not entitled to plead that he was away at the time and did not receive the notice; because it has to be conclusively presumed, because lie has not complied with the notice, that he is the driver. Therefore he cannot come to court and say, "I did not receive the notice." He is not entitled to do that if the police decide to prosecute him for the original offence (whatever it may have been) rather than to prosecute him for failing to comply with the notice.
836
The other point on Clause 1 is this. It appears to me as I read subsection (8)(b), that if a presumed owner is served with one of these notices and writes in to the police saying, "I am the owner of this vehicle but I was not the driver on this occasion; it was driven by Mr. 'A'", he is therefore complying with the notice and, as I understand it, what follows depends upon whether or not the police decide to prosecute the driver or the person whom the owner says was the driver. If they decide for any reason not to prosecute the driver, or if they prosecute him and do so unsuccessfully, the police can turn back to the original owner and say, "We are going to prosecute you as if you were the driver." That is my reading of the effect of subsection (8)(b). If I am wrong about that perhaps the noble Lord can put me right. But it seems to me very unsatisfactory if in fact that is the way it works out.
I should like to say a word about Clause 24. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that he would leave it to his colleague to deal with this matter, which is very important. It is the proposed variation of penalties for road traffic offences. As I understand it, and reading the clause with Schedule 5, it steps up the financial penalties for almost every kind of road traffic offence. The second thing is that with one exception, driving while disqualified, it would in future prevent magistrates dealing with a summary case from sending anyone to prison for one of these road traffic offences. I am the last person not to welcome a provision which might result in sending fewer people to prison. I entirely support the theme that for road traffic offences prison is almost invariably a wholly inappropriate penalty. Nevertheless, I suggest that there is a curious illogicality about what is proposed because many of these so-called traffic offences are not road traffic offences at all. Under the law as it stands, if a person makes a false statement to get a licence or insurance he can be sent to prison by the magistrates. Now that is to be abolished. Even in the case of the forgery of a document for the purpose of obtaining a licence or an insurance policy the magistrates will have no power to send an offender to prison.

837
These offences cannot be regarded as road traffic offences; they are peripherally road traffic offences only because they happen to be tied up with road traffic. Surely the offence of forgery or making a false statement could be very injurious to the public. A person who is a danger to the public when driving a vehicle may make a false statement and be able to get a licence. If that kind of thing happens is it right that we should treat the case differently from the ordinary kind of dishonesty, or fraud or forgery, and have different penalties for it? I imagine the reason why the Government have taken this line is that they are anxious to reduce the number of cases reaching the Crown Courts. It is only when the magistrates have the power to impose a term of imprisonment of more than three months that the accused person has the right to elect to be tried by a jury. If you take from the magistrates the power to send people to prison at all, an accused person will not have the right of election. He will have to be tried by the magistrates. I imagine that is what the Government have in mind. But it has been put to me, and I think there is some force in the argument, that it may work in the opposite way and result in more cases going to the Crown Courts.
I say that for this reason. I am sorry if I have to talk "legal lingo", but the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will understand me when I talk about a hybrid offence. That is the type of offence which may be dealt with on indictment or summarily. What happens is that if it is dealt with summarily before the magistrates there has to be a representation by the prosecutor at the beginning of the case that he thinks it a suitable case to be dealt with summarily. Then the magistrates have to decide whether they think it is a suitable case. Even though the prosecutor may think it a suitable case the magistrates may say that they think it is too serious for them to deal with and that it ought to be sent to a Crown Court. What may happen in the future is that if the magistrates are presented with a case which they regard as serious, and which might warrant imprisonment, and they know in advance that they have not the power to imprison, they may be more inclined to say, "We are going to send this case to the higher court. We do not think that the powers
838
left to us for punishment are sufficient to meet the case". Therefore that may result in more cases being sent to the Crown Courts than are being sent at present.
My Lords, I am sorry to have spoken for so long. My last point, which I will make very briefly, relates to Clause 12 and to Schedule 3. It relates to the changes being made in the information to be given about one's physical condition when applying for a licence. The law at present is that when you apply for a driving licence you have to answer a question whether you are suffering or have suffered from any kind of disability which might render you unable properly to manage a motor vehicle. What is now proposed is that something should be added to that. To find this you have to look at Schedule 3. What is now proposed is that a person applying for a licence should be asked an additional question, whether he suffers from any disability which is not of such a kind that it is a relevant disability—that is, a disability which we talk about now—but one
"which, by virtue of the intermittent or progressive nature of the disability or otherwise, may become a relevant disability in course of time (such disability being hereafter in this section referred to as a prospective disability')."
I ask, my Lords, whether it is possible for any responsible person or indeed any irresponsible person, to answer that question. He would have to consult the Delphic Oracle, or possibly an astrologer, in order to discover whether he was suffering from something which might in the course of time render him incapable or disable him, but which does not disable him now. I suggest that to throw that obligation on an individual is too much; and something almost not to be contemplated is that a person should be prosecuted for making a false reply to a hypothetical question of that sort. Those are the three matters to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister, and to which, as I say, we may return on Committee.
7.39 p.m.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, before I say a few words, I wonder whether may apologise to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, as I am afraid that I have an important engagement and cannot be present at the

839
end of the debate. The Bill before us is one which, though not vitally important important to the users of road traffic in this country, has nevertheless within its pages some recommendations which will, I suspect, generally commend themselves to your Lordships' House. There are others which are likely to cause criticism if not argument. One point has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I think this is really a Committee question, but perhaps it might be thought about before the Committee stage is reached. What will happen to an offender, or a receiver of a parking ticket, if the vehicle concerned has been hired? I think we have been told that the owner might be responsible, but if the car is hired it might be a difficult problem.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, may I clear up that point. Clause 3 of the Bill deals in great detail and with agreement among the car hire people, with exactly that point. I recommend my noble friend to look at that clause. I think it cures the problem.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, I am sorry; I must apologise to my noble friend. I must have missed that particular clause. The provision, however, which in my view is likely to be of most help to the general public, and which I am sure will be widely welcomed, is that which will allow, in future, local buses to be provided for local people by local people. Driving, as I frequently do, to Worcestershire and passing through some of the glorious Cotswold villages, I am occasionally tempted to think of retiring in my old age to one of the delightful cottages in that part of the country. On inquiring from friends in the neighbourhood about amenities and living conditions, the immediate reply is that it is hopeless without a car. I am lucky. I like driving, and hope to be able to drive for many more years. But I wonder about and inquire about, those who live in the depths of the country and have no car. I am informed that "the buses do not run now; they do not pay." One can appreciate that that is likely to be the case. But what of the people, young, middle-aged and elderly alike who have no transport? I am told that "the shop comes around"—very helpful, but, there is no freedom of choice for the
840
customer—a library occasionally, probably once a month: and even getting to church is a real problem.
In these lonely country areas this provision in the Bill will be more widely welcomed than perhaps some of us realise. It will also provide the opportunity for a much needed service to the community. May I add that I hope women will be able to drive these conveyances. As one who drove Green Line buses during the war in London, I can assure you that women are just as capable as men.
My Lords, there is only one part of the Bill on which I, as a two-day-a-week magistrate, feel that I must criticise the Government. This is the proposal for deleting the powers of the magistrates' courts to imprison an offender for any road traffic offence except that of driving while disqualified. I realise that every-one—and that includes the magistrates— wants to reduce the prison population. But in my view certain offenders, in exceptionally bad cases, warrant imprisonment. I firmly believe that the threat of imprisonment has a deterring effect. In the cases of driving with excess alcohol or dangerous driving, where disqualification is mandatory, the possibility of imprisonment should, in my view, also be a possible punishment. I rarely agreed with a suspended sentence—too many people got away with it if they were careful—but I believe that a prison sentence for three months, suspended for two or three years would be a better deterrent and warning to others than any enlarged financial penalty.
The number of offenders found guilty of dangerous or reckless driving last year was 6,241, of whom only 36 were sentenced to immediate imprisonment.
The number of those found guilty of driving while unfit through drink or drugs was 43,836, but only 307 were sentenced to immediate imprisonment. These figures, I think, prove that magistrates, in their courts, are very loath to imprison an offender; but also I hope they prove that these are exceptional circumstances where the bench feel that they have no alternative. It may be of interest, my Lords, to know that on my information, in Holland 30 days is mandatory for drunken driving; and in America drivers are also imprisoned for one month. Most of your Lordships'

841
will know that imprisonment for driving while drunk was also mandatory in this country until a few years ago. To take away these powers from the courts at this time would, in my view, be seen by this country to be a weak decision.
There are only two small items that I should like to touch on, and that is finally to ask the Minister to try to see that the new method of issuing driving licences is speeded up. One defendant in my court has had his case remanded three times, on each occasion hoping that his licence will have been sent to him when he appears. The second point is that if licences are to be granted from the age of 17 to 70, I hope that they will come in the form of hardbacks, not paperbacks. My hardback licence lasted from 1935 to 1971, when it was replaced by a cardboard covered one. I am glad to say that both are otherwise still clean.
7.47 p.m.
LORD HACKING: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the new improvements in law set out in this Bill. But I have two regrets: First, I regret the complexity of the provisions of this Bill; and, secondly, I regret that this is yet another Bill to be brought into force by Statutory Instrument. If I may pause over those two regrets, I turn first to the complexity of the provisions. It may be that the Minister will take the point that the motorcar is a complicated machine. If lie should do so, having myself had mysterious mechanical trouble while on holiday with my family in Wales, I would be inclined to agree. But jesting apart, the complexity of the motor car is not an answer here. Indeed, I believe this Bill exposes a wider problem. I believe complex legislation in minutia is the prevalent defect of current statutory law. I believe both Houses pass detailed provisions without sufficient thought of their implementation by the courts, high or low, the police, or officials, be they Government or county. In the end I believe that Parliament defeats its own purpose if it passes statutory law which by its complexity prevents those who have to implement it doing so with expedition and exactitude.
My Lords, at this stage I was intending to proceed to some examples in this Bill of complexity, but I find myself in basic
842
difficulty: that despite the erudite opening by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and careful analysis in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I find much of this Bill incomprehensible in its drafting. That is not to criticise the Parliamentary draughtsmen, but to criticise the instructions they received.
I turn now to my second regret. This again is a Bill which is to be brought into force by Statutory Instrument. I have debated this point once before with the Minister during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill. Perhaps it suffices to say that I note that this Bill still has that disease—I think it is the "epidemic disease" of recent statute law—of having no date of enactment, but having the enactments or provisions brought in by Statutory Instruments and with all the difficulties that this entails. This fact I set out in an earlier speech during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill.
My Lords, the greatest regret that I have about this Bill concerns an absentee. The absentee is this. The Government have failed to include in this Bill fresh provisions to replace the breathalyser law which was originally set out in the Road Safety Act 1967 and now forms part of the consolidated enactment, the Road Traffic Act 1972, Sections 6 to 13. Your Lordships will be familiar with the breathalyser law: indeed, many of your Lordships will have been in the House when the original Bill went through. I recognise that there is a question of priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his opening speech said that the Government had given due consideration to priorities, and they felt that the provisions set out in this Bill covered those matters of greatest priority.
I also recognise that this Bill deals with other aspects of road traffic. None the less, in my submission, this Bill remains a convenient vehicle. Moreover, the breathalyser law is a matter of priority. Why do I say this? Although the Road Safety Bill was clothed in good intentions, it has, I believe, proved (to all of those who are concerned with efficiency and expedition of the process of law) to be the worst piece of legislation for a decade. Instead of clearing up old ambiguities and difficulties under the old law concerning being unfit to drive, with nystagmus having to be proved, and the difficulty, too, of obtaining proper

843
convictions before juries, this Bill will create more complex difficulties.
I emphasise that I speak as a practising lawyer, and I am not riding any political horse. My criticism is exclusively a professional criticism, but I hope it will be one that has some sting. Contrary to some popular belief, lawyers, certainly in my experience, do not enjoy presenting unmeritorious cases. Sir Robert Mark was kind enough to recognise this in his brilliant Dimbleby Lecture of a few days ago. Yet time and time again under these breathalyser provisions we are being required to put forward unmeritorious defences. I think I can do no better than to quote from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in a recent case that came before the Judicial Committee of this House, when he said this in a breathalyser case:
"Like many appeals under the Road Safety Act 1967, this appeal is wholly without merits and, like many other appeals wholly without merits, it has been conducted almost entirely at the public expense, since the appellant is legally aided".
That is a view that was repeated by Lord Justice Roskill in another case that came more recently before the High Court.
My Lords, the statistics speak for themselves. Since 1967, in the All England Reports concerning the breathalyser law, altogether 17 cases are reported to have come to the Queen's Bench Division, 21 to the Court of Appeal and five to your Lordships' Judicial Committee. These, I emphasise, are the reported cases. Beyond the reported cases there are many others that have also come before those courts. The Road Traffic Reports, another set of law reports, records altogether a total of some 50 breathalyser cases that have come before the courts.
What about the courts of first instance? What about the magistrates' courts and the Crown Courts? Here the statistics were more difficult to acquire. I made various inquiries to-day from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Office, but there were no separate statistics concerning the breathalyser law, as opposed to the old unfit to drive law, which is still part of the law and is set out in Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. However, I made inquiries at the Bedford Crown
844
Court on Monday of this week, and there I was told that this year there have been 31 breathalyser cases out of 300 cases which that court has dealt with. This is not approaching the point with exactitude, but I was told by the Lord Chancellor's Office that altogether in 1972 there have been 37,324 cases of trials before the Crown Courts. If one were to transpose that 10 per cent., 31 of 300, to 1972, one reaches the startling figure of 3,700 cases. That may well be on the high side; the Bedford Crown Court is a court on a lower tier and it may be that that court has a higher number of breathalyser cases. However, it indicates the number of cases that are heard in the courts of first instance, and accords with the impression of lawyers who practise both in the magistrates' court and in the Crown Court.
My Lords, what is the conclusion to be drawn from this? I suggest it is this. The provisions which should have been cut and dried, and which should have led to the minimum of appeals, have taken an excessive time of the courts and brought upon the Treasury excessive costs. Some of your Lordships may be asking: why such an abundance of judicial authority? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice put the matter in rather vivid terms in a recent case in 1972, when referring to the abundance of cases coming out of the "apparently inexhaustible well of the Road Safety Act".
I believe that there is both a general reason and a particular reason. The general reason covers my earlier complaint, that Parliament has legislated in particularity, setting out detailed provisions which must be followed to the letter and, if not, there is a break in the chain of procedures, and proceedings are brought to a nullity. Two breath tests with particular equipment, special and limited forms of arrest, further specific requirements in the police station including how the sample should be handed out—it is small wonder that in earlier days, when the provisions of the Road Safety Act first became law, all the earlier appeals arose out of baffled police officers failing to master the complexities of procedure.
Then there is the particular reason. Parliament attempted to prevent random tests by restricting the circumstances in

845
which tests could be administered, and in doing so made the provisions more complex and less enforceable. Concerning accidents, the provisions here were moderately sensible and caused no serious difficulty. The other circumstances in which a motorist can be stopped and breathalysed are limited to cases where the officer has seen a motorist driving or attempting to drive, and during the course of that driving or attempting to drive, he has either formed grounds to suspect that there was too much alcohol in the motorist's blood or has noted that the driver has committed a traffic offence. Parliament did not give a very good start to the courts, because by literally reading those provisions one finds the awkward situation where the police officer in uniform has to administer the breathalyser test at the same time as the driver is driving or attempting to drive.
What does it all come to? The car need not be in motion. It can be stopped at traffic lights, or the driver can be adjusting the windscreen wipers. If stopped for reasons unconnected with driving, the motorist escapes the provisions of the breathalyser law. For instance, if a motorists stops to make a telephone call or to have a discussion about politics outside a railway station, then he will escape the provisions of the breathalyser law.
There have been surprising consequences. I will mention two cases very briefly, because I recognise that I am referring your Lordships to an absentee from the Bill rather than to what is actually contained in it. I would refer to the case of Edkins v. Knowles, which was the case in which two plain clothes police officers in a police car saw a motorist driving a car very fast and erratically. They followed him for three miles to a holiday camp where he lived and, while doing so, sent out a radio call requesting the attendance of a traffic patrol car. They did not attempt to overtake the motorist as they thought it would be dangerous to do so. When the defendant had finally stopped at the holiday camp, they drew up beside him, identified themselves and asked him to wait until the patrol car arrived. He did so, remaining in the driving seat of the car. A few minutes later a traffic patrol car arrived, with uniformed police officers. Because the first officers were in plain clothes and not in uniform, and
846
because they had stopped that motorist from effectively driving or attempting to drive, then when the uniformed police officers came to carry out the breath test, they were no longer dealing with a motorist who was driving or attempting to drive: hence, all the proceedings were a nullity.
I would refer to another case concerning a private citizen, who noticed that another motorist had had too much to drink and that his driving was affected by it. With some courage, the first man held the driver at some traffic lights and waited for uniformed police officers to arive. When some uniformed officers did arrive fifteen minutes later, it was all a nullity because by that stage the driver was no longer driving or attempting to drive. The irony of it all is that the random tests which Parliament was attempting to prevent being carried out, can be carried out—and this is so because of an extension of the meaning of "driving or attempting to drive". So that if a motorist has been stopped and thereafter a police officer observes the smell of alcohol on the man's breath, it is perfectly permissible for the officer, from that point onwards, to administer a breath test. That, I would submit to your Lordships, is a form of random test.
The other difficulties are legion. I have spoken for fifteen minutes, and perhaps your Lordships would accept from me that, for example, the drinking of alcohol between the ceasing of the driving and the taking of the breath test will reduce the proceedings to a nullity. I hope that your Lordships will also accept from me—I have authorities, though I will not put them before you at this stage—that if you punch a police officer on the nose and, not surprisingly, he arrests you for doing so, any subsequent tests which are carried out are a nullity. I could quote from a case within my own experience which would support that statement.
There is a great deal more that I could say to your Lordships. I received good advice from the Minister before coming into the Chamber—advice which I am afraid I have not wholly followed. I would merely express the hope to your Lordships that I have sufficiently illustrated the need for this piece of legislation to receive immediate attention from the Government in this Bill. I realise

847
that it could be made the subject of a Private Member's Bill and that I could move Amendments during Committee stage. I have not been for a very long time in your Lordships' House, but I have been here sufficiently long to recognise that unless the Government take the lead in this type of legislation, these reforms cannot be achieved. It is this lead I ask of the Government.
8.5 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble kinsman. I was interested to hear of the cases he referred to in regard to breathalyser tests, and I shall be most interested to sec what will happen if he moves Amendments at Committee stage or otherwise tries to alter the law in order to make the existing breathalyser test more strictly enforceable. I would go all the way with him about the random tests to which he refers. However, we can wait for these things, perhaps, until another day.
I welcome this Bill, as will anybody who is interested in road safety matters—and I am sure that includes all Members of your Lordships' House. Many measures relating to road safety over the last few years have originated in this House. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Aberdare and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on the way they dealt with the opening stages of this debate. They cleared up a number of difficult points which had occurred to me earlier, and for this reason I can now shorten my speech somewhat. Like the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I look forward to the Committee stage. It is quite obvious from this debate that much water will have to flow under the bridge before this Bill really takes shape—and, in passing, I see that I made a note to the effect that Clause 3 was likely to present some difficulty. Therefore I was very pleased to hear what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said—followed in this respect by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve—that the rather complex terms of this clause have been discussed with the interested parties and accepted by them. This is a very satisfactory outcome.
Turning to Clause 6, covering the stopping of vehicles at road junctions, I would say that this is very welcome. I read it coupled with Clause 8, which
848
refers to the obligations of local authorities. I will not mention the obligations to which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, quite properly referred, appertaining to local authorities under the new Local Government Act. However, one point occurred to me at the beginning of this week on my way here, and that is that local authorities should be placed under an obligation to see that if their own vehicles, particularly machines such as compressors and the like, must he stationed at a road junction, then one member of the crew, or perhaps a detached traffic warden, should be asked to help traffic, particularly at peak times, in situations where a corner is concealed by the machinery.
As to the duties of local authorities, I should like to repeat an appeal which has been made in your Lordships' House may times over the years, within my recollection. It is that street names should be easily legible and fixed where they can be seen by drivers. Many street names are fixed at a height more suitable for the days when a driver was probably driving a hansom cab. It is safe to say that many motorists in strange towns and cities to-day have the greatest difficulty in finding where they are. I world go further and say that we should include in the obligations of local authorities some provision regarding the numbering of premises. Many premises nowadays are not even numbered at all. It is very difficult for a driver or a tradesman to find exactly the building he is looking for if the number is not visible from the driving seat of a vehicle.
I should now like to go to Clause 8, which deals with the duty of local authorities to promote road safety and I should like to refer to two particular points. I welcome the added road safety duties given to the local authorities under this clause. Hitherto, the term "road safety" in local authority terms has meant the giving of information and safety education. No one will dispute the necessity for this work; but it is also essential that the authorities should have a continuing duty to look at accident spots from a traffic engineering point of view, and take steps to eliminate dangers which become obvious. The better authorities already do this; but with many it is simply no-one's job in the highway departments to

849
deal with accident spots and difficulties as such.
Some authorities—I believe last week the London borough of Wandsworth did this—have taken steps to appoint a traffic engineer with responsibility for accident investigations. I hope that the Minister will make clear that to carry out their function properly under this clause each authority should, so far as they are able, appoint a specialist officer. The next point under this clause to which I should like to refer is pavement parking. This is one important omission from the Bill and might be considered by my noble friend before another stage is reached. This is regarding a reference to a prohibition on pavement parking. I am a vice-president of the Pedestrians Association and am advised by that organisation that the Association receives more complaints about this nuisance than any other subject. The car parked on the pavement is not only inconvenient to pedestrians, but can be positively dangerous for mothers with prams who are sometimes forced on to the carriage-way in order to get round the car. It is a nuisance which should be made the subject of a clear statutory prohibition.
The present law is still contained in the Highway Act of 1835 which makes it an offence (and I quote):
"To wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine or cattle, or carriage of any description, on to a footway".
It is possible that these words include a motor vehicle, but there is a difficulty in that the law does not assume a car parked on the pavement as being led or driven there. In any case, it is absurd that an Act of 1835 should be the governing Statute on what happens on our crowded pavements to-day. The House of Lords was led to expect that some legislation would be forthcoming on this subject as recently as last March. In reply to a Question from the right reverened Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton replied, saying:
"My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will consider legislation making it an offence to park on the pavement as soon as a suitable opportunity arises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/3/73; col. 1279.]
With respect, I suggest that this Bill is an excellent opportunity for a provision on pavement parking and I am sorry that the Government have not so far taken it.
850
Perhaps I may move an Amendment on that subject when the Committee stage is reached.
Clause 9 refers to vehicle lights. This will require careful consideration, and I also realise that it involves some measure of agreement with the E.E.C. I have a bee in my bonnet about stationary vehicles. Accidents with stationary vehicles are such killers and so often arise through insufficient or obscured rear lights. Are we going to be fully satisfied that the regulations under the Act will insist on a sufficiency of red lights on the rear of big vehicles? I forget what the required height is, but I know that the minimum height is specified in the existing regulations. I personally believe it is too high for the drivers of smaller cars to see the rear of a big vehicle. On the other hand, the lower the lights the more likely they are to be obscured by mud and snow. I should be interested to know to what extent the regulations will provide a series of lights, low and high, at the rear of heavy vehicles.
Talking about lights, I should like to mention the "Hazard Warning" switch system which, as your Lordships know, is now becoming more common. I refer of course to the switch which can be put on in an emergency which turns on all four trafficators. Perhaps the noble Viscount knows that this is a matter which is already under consultation between ourselves and the Continent. I also "got it up the backstairs" that the Department of the Environment are in favour of pressing on with the "Hazard Warning" system on cars. I should like to see it become an obligatory fitting on new cars, rather as the seat belt is now obligatory.
That brings me to the matter of seat belts about which I have prepared no notes. I imagined that everybody would mention them and seat belts have not yet been mentioned at all. I know the difficulties. I have a daughter in Victoria, Australia, where seat belts have been compulsory for some time now. Manifest advantages have been displayed by the resultant reduction in the serious accident and fatality figures. Perhaps when the noble Viscount replies he will be able to say what the Government's approach to this is. I believe the real difficulty

851
in making the wearing of seat belts compulsory in this country would be enforcement, and the police feel strongly about this. At the same time, there is no doubt that the latest designed seat belts, the one-hand operated seat belts, are an enormous improvement. I must tell your Lordships the story of my son when he was younger. He was getting into my car and I said, "Buckle up your seat belt". He replied, "Oh, dammit Daddy, I shall die of old age before I can find the thing". The fact is that that was one of the old designs. I believe that the future designs will have to be the one-hand operated type if they are going to be used at all.
Clause 12 has been referred to and the matters raised were cleared up when my noble friend mentioned Lord Monck's inquiry, and also that of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I have a three-year licence which was issued in my 72nd year. I wondered exactly where I stood. Of course as a Scotsman I am delighted to hear that I can get a licence free in the future; but at the same time, joking apart, when my noble friend said the word "free" I thought he said "Screen". I say that deliberately, because I believe that at our age there should be an obligatory medical examination. On the other hand, if it is a three-year licence it will require the declaration to be filled in as it is to-day.
That brings me to the question of a licence lasting for three years, or to the age of 70, whichever is the longer. I was delighted to hear the remark of the noble Baroness about the physical condition of a licence after floating about from car pocket to car pocket, from jacket to jacket and from pocketbook to pocketbook for something like 52 years, which would be the case of a licence issued at the age of 18. When we come to the Committee stage—as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said—this is something we must consider carefully. Perhaps a five-year licence might be helpful to the police having regard to the present complexity of issuing licences every three years. Of course, if we are suddenly going to reduce this burden, what is going to happen to the computer? I imagine some other jobs will be found for it. On that subject, too, not only is there the question of the physical con
852
dition of a licence lasting some 50 years but it has been made clear to me by one party that they feel that the existing system of one's having every so many years to fill up a form is a reminder of the obligation on the holder of the licence to be sure that he is fit. It has been mentioned by one noble Lord already to-day that one could lose a leg and have two years of the licence still to ran without having to declare one's disability. That, of course, is an extreme case. The fact is that if there is to be no reminder of any sort for a period of 50 years, it is conceivable that people might become casual about the obligation to notify the authority if they find themselves to be failing in any way.
My Lords, we have had a brief and satisfactory debate about Clauses 14 and 15 so I will not go on with that, except to say that my noble friend's indication that the licensing of a heavy vehicle driver was going to be a progressive system takes a great weight off my mind. Of course that subject will be debated when we come to it in Committee. To conclude, my Lords, there is one fact abort which I am not quite clear—I cannot find it in either the 1972 Act or the Bill we are discussing. Are we satisfied that the penalties for overloading and for improperly secured loads are adequate? That is something that needs to be watched because of the danger of the awful accidents that occur. My Lords, I would only ask the foregiveness of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross if I am not here when he winds up, but I have to catch a sleeper train to Scotland.
8.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, I will start by thanking my noble friend Lord Aberdare very warmly indeed for his gracious reference to me in his opening speech in connection with the fact that I drew his attention to the situation regarding driving licences of those who attain the age of seventy. At the same time, I should like to congratulate him heartily because this is the first time, in my experience, or, I think, in anybody else's, that a Minister has given a reply to a question more than two years before an answer was required. All I can say, having heard there is going to be a freeze, is "Roll on 7/11/1975". In my humble

853
opinion, my Lords, drivers are divided into two classes: those who drive, or try to drive, with due care and attention, and those who drive without either care or consideration for others or without regard to warning notices. In this brief speech I am going to refer only to the first class, because only penalties can deal with the ones who drive without care or consideration.
Reference has already been made by my noble friend Lord Ferrier and by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to Clause 8, which places a statutory duty on local authorities to carry out road safety functions, and I want to mention two which I suggest should be brought to their attention. The first is the double white lines—and I am talking about those where one white line is broken and the other is continuous—and the second is warning notices. As to double white lines, item 53 on page 11 of the Highway Code reads:
"Where there are double white lines in the middle of the road and the line nearer to you is broken, you may cross it to overtake if you can do so safely and before reaching an unbroken white line on your side. A broken line does not mean that it is safe to overtake."
That is fair enough, but having observed certain broken and continuous white lines beside each other round about the country I was a little worried, because I have seen certain places where there were broken white lines on my side of the road but where it would never be safe to overtake.
I tried to get a little information, and an unofficial reply given to me was, "Ah, you should see our computer; we always work these things out properly". The indication that where a broken white line was made and it was done by computer should mean that it accorded absolutely with the Code. I then received a rather more official reply, which said that these lines conformed to a "speed visibility criteria". That was a bit too much for me—I only went to Eton—so I wrote to my noble friend Lord Sandford, who, as usual, was extremely helpful. He confirmed that the speed visibility criteria was the factor that decided the placing of these lines, but he also sent me extracts from Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual, I must say that Appendices 1 and 2–though I could not understand a word of them—seemed to provide a very comprehensive system for deciding where
854
the broken and continuous white lines should be placed. But my query still is whether the system under Appendices 1 and 2 of this chapter are always employed.
The fact is that I have seen many cases where it would never be safe to cross over a broken white line on your side, either because the visibility was insufficient or because the distance between the places where you changed from your broken to your continuous white line was too short. If my noble friend Lord Aberdare or my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross would ever dare to honour my humble roof, I will undertake within an hour's drive—and I also undertake to be breathalysed before we start out—to show them quite a number of cases where I think they would agree that a broken white line should never have been placed.
Secondly, my Lords, there are these warning notices. We have all seen them. You come across, first of all, a notice which indicates "Road works", showing a gentleman who looks as though he is shovelling coal into a boiler. Then you come to another one, "Reduce speed now", and the third, "Traffic signals ahead". There are others, as well. These are all excellent when the reason for observing them is valid, but they are too often left up when they are not needed. After passing two or three of these series of notices and finding nothing whatever to prevent him from going straight ahead without peril, even the most careful driver becomes cynical. He then disregards the next lot of notices, which are probably operative, and therefore there is trouble. I would suggest to my noble friends that it be urged on local authorities that they should very carefully re-check the broken and continuous white lines which they have in their various counties or districts, and, secondly, that warning signs should be removed, laid aside, turned round or whatever should be done when they are not intended to be operative. I feel that if these two things were done it would help the honest-to-God motorist—the fellow who does try to drive carefully—in a very difficult job.
8.30 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I appreciate that it is a very late hour at which to start a speech. I suppose the inducement is to finish it as quickly as possible. My reason for rising at all at this late

855
hour is that I consider that something which has already been referred to, both by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, should be brought a little more forcibly to the attention of the noble Viscount who is about to reply.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Not yet, my Lords.
LORD JANNER: Well, my Lords, I shall do my best to make my speech as short as possible. I feel, as another noble Lord felt when speaking a few minutes ago, that it would be better if, instead of Amendments coming forward from some person outside the Government, the Government themselves considered the question I am raising between now and when we discuss this Bill in Committee. This is what I hope will happen after I have spoken, if I can manage to bring forward my points as they should be made. If they were brought forward in that way, they would, I am sure, compel the Government to think twice about the position in regard to what I suggest.
I want to refer to the question of the magistrates' courts. I believe from what has been said already that the Government would be prepared, if convinced in the debate here, to consider that the Bill should be amended. First of all, I think we ought to look at this matter in true perspective. Who are the people concerned, the magistrates? The magistrates themselves deal with 98 per cent. of criminal cases in the court of first instance—adult and juvenile courts. I think I have some experience in this connection in two respects. First, I have lived with my wife who has been a magistrate for nearly 38 years and who to-day is an officer of the Magistrates' Association, and I know quite a number of other magistrates as well. I too practised in the courts in my early days as a solicitor and had the opportunity of seeing the whole situation from a different angle.
Magistrates are competent people, and have been accepted as competent people, to decide very important issues. In fact, recently they have been given duties in the Crown Courts which are very similar to the duties that the judges themselves have. Indeed, the two magistrates who
856
sit with the judge can in certain cases overrule the judge himself if they feel differently and make a decision which is different from his opinion. So in fact it has been recognised that magistrates have this competence, either because of their long experience in the courts, or, if newly elected, because of the compulsion for them to undergo training to fit them for the job. I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive me for introducing the matter in this way, but I think this is important, because if magistrates express a view it is obviously one which might easily be expressed by judges who sit in the Crown Courts; indeed, perhaps magistrates have more experience and understanding of cases (and I say this with all due respect) than some of the judges. Two magistrates must sit with a judge in the Crown Courts, with equal powers of decision on all appeals, sentencing and borstal recommendations. They are tremendously important duties and indicate that they are capable of giving opinions which are sound.
Hidden in a quiet corner of this Bill are some big changes in principle in regard to penalties in the magistrates' courts and the resultant effects. From page 64, Schedule 5, paragraph 4, it might be surmised that the raising of a fine to £400 had little significance. In fact, these alterations take from the magistrates' courts the power to imprison defendants for all road traffic offences, except driving while disqualified. I should like noble Lords to realise that there is no intention on the part of the magistrates themselves to desire these powers for power's sake. They have formed their conclusions after very careful consideration by their Road Traffic Committee and by the Council of the Magistrates' Association.
May I suggest that the Government by their proposals would be attempting to pre-empt decisions of the James Committee, who are at present sitting to consider the distribution of criminal work in the Crown Court and the magistrates' courts. If I may use an expression which I think is Parliamentary but not very elegant, I think they are "jumping the gun".
The Magistrates' Association and the Justices Clerks Society have made joint representations to the Home Office. It is unusual for them to think identically upon any particular project or matter.

857
In this particular case they are both opposed to the principle of withdrawing the power of imprisonment for serious motoring offences from the magistrates' court. As we have heard already from the noble Baroness, the power is not used very much, and she has given figures which fully illustrate the position in so far as convictions are concerned. This morning there was a meeting of the Council of the Magistrates' Association. They considered the whole case put forward by the Government and that is the reason why I prefaced my remarks by referring to the position of magistrates and why we should take notice of what they say.
This is the resolution:
"That in view of the severe restrictions on passing sentences of imprisonment, which already exist and which were reinforced by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, the power of magistrates' courts to imprison offenders for the more serious motoring offences or associated serious offences of dishonesty"—
and I think that has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Foot—
"should not be abolished; decisions of principle in regard to penalties of imprisonment in summary cases will inevitably pre-empt the recommendations of the James Committee."
It is obvious that the purpose of the Government in withdrawing the power of imprisonment is to take away from the offender the right to opt for trial by jury in the Crown Court. Presumably the idea is to clear the backlog in those courts, but according to my information, in the Provinces the Crown Courts are rapidly catching up with this backlog and it is only in London that there is to-day a big problem.
Some of the side effects of these changes are that neither the adult magistrates' court nor the juvenile court will be able to send defendants to detention centres or attendance centres or make a community service order. Additionally, they will not be able to issue warrants for the arrest of people who have not paid the fines. I should like to refer to that for a moment or two. The removal of a power to impose imprisonment will remove the powers of committal for borstal training (and I have already referred to detention centres and attendance centres), hostel and guardianship orders under the Mental Health Act 1959, orders of remand for medical reports
858
under Section 25 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 and, possibly, community service orders, with which the Government were so pleased with their recent legislation. That being the case, once a defendant is convicted, it is not possible for a magistrates' court to ensure his presence by the issue of a warrant unless the court wishes to consider imprisonment or disqualification. The removal of the power to imprison and the substitution of an increased fine means that for all the offences of dishonesty and fraud set out in the Schedule, the court has no power to secure the defendant's presence, no matter how substantial the fine which is imposed.
These are practical people. I have my information from the practical people themselves and I am prepared to accept it; and I hope that the Government will do the same on reconsidering the matter. I do not think this is going to help the final view that it will reduce the number of cases in the Crown Courts. I do not think that if a court considers a case is sufficiently serious and it has the power to send it to the Crown Court, and if the prosecutor thinks the same and has the power to ask for it to be sent to the Crown Court, there will be any lesser number of such cases for the Crown Court if we retain this provision for the magistrates' court itself. Obviously the sentence which the magistrates' courts can impose is a comparatively light sentence for some of the offences, and those offences which require only a term of imprisonment to be imposed, or a shorter sentence could easily be dealt with by the magistrates' courts.
After all, what does a fine mean to some people? Just look at the position. A wealthy person commits a very serious offence; he comes before the magistrates' court and that court imposes a maximum fine of £400. It may mean nothing to him at all. It may not he a deterrent of any kind. Whereas if a term of imprisonment were imposed, even if the term were suspended, that would mean very much to that individual and he would still have the right to appeal if he thought that the term of imprisonment had been wrongly imposed upon him.
Another point I should like to make, and which I hope the Government will take note of, is that a person wants to have the right to go to a higher court and

859
have the case tried by jury. Some people feel that even if a small tine is likely to be imposed they want the right to have a trial by a higher court. My experience is that when one speaks to a person who is subjected to only a small fine he sometimes feels just as strongly as a person who has had a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. It comes to him as just as much of a shock. It may sound unreasonable to us when we think about a small fine, but the fact is that that is how some people think who do not want any kind of fine imposed upon them at all.
I could of course elaborate on the provisions in the Bill, but I hope that the Government will take into consideration the point of view that has been expressed, and very much more forcibly and in better terms than I could, by the Magistrates' Association. I do not think for one moment that they would abuse the position as it stands. I do not think they have abused the position. They feel as I feel, and as many others feel, that to remove what they consider to be a deterrent effect in respect of serious traffic crimes is not reasonable and it should not be the only way left to them to send a case to the Crown Court if they think it is not so terribly serious as to incur long sentences, because that will merely load up the Crown Court with cases where perhaps they might think that a month's or two months' imprisonment would be sufficient. It should also not be left purely to the prosecutor. I do not want to go into lengthy reasons in connection with that. Some interesting comments have been made in the Press and elsewhere in recent days about some of the results of considering prosecutions and defences, and I hope and believe that the Government will take into consideration what has been said by the Association, and I hope to some extent what has been said by myself, and that at the Committee stage they will come forward and say. "This is wrong: we have changed our minds on this and we ourselves will introduce an Amendment".
8.50 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, this Bill is yet another effort made by various Governments over the last 70 years or so to meet the ever
860
increasing problems that continue to arise as a result of the transport revolution created by the introduction of the internal combustion engine some 80 years ago. Next January 1 is the 70th anniversary of the inception of compulsory number plates and when the speed limit was increased from 12 m.p.h. to the terrible speed of 20 m.p.h. This legislation was introduced by my own father in another place. Then, as now in this Bill, there was no great principle but just more rules and regulations, many of which are necessary and, indeed, welcome.
Before dealing briefly with one important omission from the Bill I should like briefly to make one or two points about three clauses. First of all, with reference to Clauses 1 to 5 and Clause 22, there is the question of whether when a car is stolen the obligation still rests with the owner. I make this point because the other day there was a report that a car had been stolen, the fact was reported to the police and the owner had to pay a great deal of money to get it out of the compound.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, I can clear this up now. There is an express exemption in the Bill for that circumstance.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount. Secondly, I should like to welcome Clause 6, the banning of parking on urban crossroads. If one looks at the Bill, this will apply to many country districts as well. I hope it will. I hope the Ministry will look at the method by which the banning of parking is marked on the street, because there is nothing more hideous than enormous double yellow lines in country districts, in beautiful villages and small towns. Perhaps some attention could be given to this. Necessary though it is to make a visible sign, I do not think double yellow lines are the best way of doing it.
I particularly welcome in Clause 8 the need for local authorities to investigate accidents. One of the most ridiculous signs in this country is the "black spot" accident sign. If anything, this sign is a terrible reflection on the attitude of the road authorities. Accidents are caused by bad road design, and not by drivers looking for accidents. I hope that, as a

861
result of this Bill, we shall see that rather ridiculous sign removed from British roads.
I now come to my main point. I think the Bill misses a great opportunity to legislate for the compulsory use of safety belts. There is a good place for belting up by law, and I am not referring to changing the rules in your Lordships' House! In 1971, 2,750 people died and 35,000 people were injured as a result of road accidents in cars and light vans. The financial cost to the nation was estimated to be about £111 million, but the costs in human suffering obviously cannot be measured. World-wide research indicates that if all vehicle occupants wore seat belts at all times, fatalities would be reduced by 50 per cent. and serious injuries by about one-third. This would mean in the United Kingdom alone the saving of 1,000 lives and 14,000 injuries. Research also indicates that there is no other practical way of achieving such reductions. Here is a challenge to all those who are constantly asking for ways of reducing accidents. It might be done by making the widest, compulsory use of safety belts.
I think Her Majesty's Government are interested in the reaction of people to this. They will be comforted to know, no doubt (as they may already know) that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and the Automobile Association have said that they believe the wearing of belts by drivers and front seat passengers of cars could make a significant and substantial contribution to the reduction of death and injury on our roads. There has been excellent recent publicity by the Department of the Environment in the "clunk-click" campaign, led by the worthy Jimmy Savile. This campaign has been helpful and worth while, but it seems unlikely that it will be enough to make the reduction in injuries which could be made. Of course, it is appreciated that there are drivers and passengers who, for valid physical reasons, may not be able to wear seat belts. Therefore, legislation would have to provide for exemption in such cases, possibly evidenced by a doctor's certificate.
It is true also that since 1965 the front seats of cars and vans are already required to be equipped with seat belts Therefore, I do not think we can accuse the motor industry or the seat belt manufacturers
862
of having any commercial interest in supporting legislation to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. They believe it will save unnecessary misery and suffering. It would not be possible at this stage to introduce compulsory rear seat belts, but this will have to come. It would be a good thing if it did. A second alternative to compulsory seat belts would be the fitting to all new vehicles of a complex passive occupant restraint system where one cannot drive one's car away unless the belt is fitted. This kind of system is in operation in America at present, but many people find ways of cheating. There is, too, a vulnerability to failure of the mechanical system in the case of an accident.
My Lords, people might say that the compulsory wearing of seat belts could be an infringement of personal liberty. I do not believe this. I hope that your Lordships' House will agree that the cost to the community of road accidents is not just limited to the person involved, his family or his employers. There are the costs of the public services such as the police, ambulance, medical and legal services and on the whole community. There is an obligation on each of us to reduce unnecessary calls on the limited resources of these services. None of us can go on an aeroplane without wearing safety belts, and I do not see why we should not get into the same habit when we ride in cars. To-day there is a report in the Press that there is an insurance benefit, because damages in an accident case were reduced because someone was not wearing a seat belt. There are several precedents, the most important possibly being in Australia. There is also a belting-up law in Malawi, New Zealand, Yugoslavia, and France, though in France only in rural districts. I think this is a mistake because I believe statistics show that most accidents occur in built-up areas, and often only 10 miles from home. The fact is that in Australia, in the State of Victoria there was a decline in deaths after sea belt wearing became compulsory of 18·5 per cent., and 17·3 per cent. of all vehicle accidents, which also includes accidents with motor cycles and bicycles where seat belts are not worn. I gather that the Home Office is concerned about police enforcement. I do not see why the police to-day cannot cope just as well. I am therefore asking to-night for the Government to consider

863
putting down an Amendment on Committee stage, an enabling clause, to make it possible for them to implement by Statutory Instrument and thus avoid future legislation on this subject. I believe it is right for public opinion to be tested, and I am sure the opinion of both Houses, too. I must give notice that if the Government do not put down such an Amendment, I shall do so, as I feel it is important for the House to discuss this most vital question so that lives and injuries may be saved.
8.59 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be delighted to know that my speech will take only a couple of minutes. I wish to speak briefly and draw attention to one road safety aspect which I regret has been omitted from the Bill. It is the question of the safety of school-children when they are either boarding or alighting from school buses. I wonder whether the Minister, perhaps at some time, not necessarily this evening, could let me have the figures for accidents which have occurred in this way over the past three or four years. Indeed, I think they will probably be of interest to many noble Lords, and I fear we should probably be appalled and horrified at the size of the figures.
Only three weeks or so ago in a village near my home an accident occurred. Two youngsters who were getting off the school bus saw their mother, who had come to meet them, ran across the road hand-in-hand, and, unfortunately, bang, that was that; one was killed pretty well instantly and the other seriously injured. Obviously I cannot comment on this accident at the present time, but inevitably accidents such as those must be happening all too frequently. It is a problem which will probably be aggravated by the trend towards the centralisation of schools; obviously more and more youngsters will be transported by bus. Children will always be children, no matter how we try to teach them their kerbside drill; they are bound, from the sheer joy of living, momentarily to forget from time to time. In fact, only a year or so ago the young daughter of a friend of mine got off the bus, saw her pony in a field on the other side, and, unfortunately, the same thing happened; she was killed almost in
864
stantly. She momentarily forgot what she had been taught and the worst happened.
I feel that we should somehow try at least to lessen the danger—we cannot eliminate it altogether. Could not all school buses have large, adequately illuminated signs, both front and back, telling everyone exactly for what purpose they are being used? I should like to see some definite colour used for school buses, but that probably is not possible; it would be uneconomical, as the buses obviously have to be used for other purposes as well. Could they not have flashing lights—a red light, if you like—to be switched on when children are either boarding or alighting? I should like to see it made mandatory that all traffic, both approaching traffic and traffic from the rear, be compelled to stop when these lights are flashing. I believe this is the law in the United States and Canada, and possibly in many other countries; I am not sure about that. I feel it would be most advantageous if we could adopt a similar system. We should minimise the dangers in that respect. I appreciate that many problems are involved, possibly with a number of buses all getting to a certain school at the same time; but I think the main danger lies when youngsters are joyfully scrambling off the bus when they arrive home. I ask the Government to give this matter urgent and careful consideration, and if possible at a later stage to incorporate it into this Bill.
9.3 p.m.
LORD LUCAS or CHILWORTH: My Lords, in the interests of brevity I am sure my noble friends on the Front Bench will forgive me if I dispense with the usual pleasantries. I should like to comment on a number of clauses. I start with Clause 6, "Prohibiting on stopping of vehicles at urban junctions." I, too, am a little disappointed that the full effect of this clause is to be found in the regulations, and there appear to be a number of exemptions which will have to apply. In the main, nearly every junction in a city will come under this clause. One can foresee delivery vehicles being pushed further down the side roads, which inevitably will mean a longer waiting time and consequently additional cause of disruption. I think it would be helpful if in regard to the regulations we could have more information as to which way the

865
Government's intentions are likely to move. Clauses 9 and 10, dealing with the extension of the Construction and Use Regulation and with type approval, need little comment, unless it be to say that they must be warmly welcomed.
Clause 11 deals with unroadworthy vehicles and the sale thereof. This is a difficult situation. It affects the motor industry considerably, and it would be quite wrong to pretend that breaches of the intention of the existing law are not evidenced in nearly every local newspaper nearly every week. It seems to me that it would be even more helpful to the ultimate purchasers of a vehicle if incorported within this clause was a requirement that a vehicle which was being offered for sale should have a current Ministry test certificate. Your Lordships will probably remember that I have spoken on this subject before. Notwithstanding the imperfections of the existing M.O.T. test scheme, which I think is fairly widely admitted—we hope to see it revised in the not too distant future—I should have thought that this clause, with that addition, would prove to be more demanding than it is now drafted. On Clause 12, I should like particularly to refer to subsection (1)(c). Here there are provisions for altering the cases where a licence to drive a motor vehicle of one class operates as a provisional licence to drive others. It is my understanding that currently a motor car licence is acceptable as one for a lower class of vehicle, and is at the same time acceptable as a provisional licence for a higher class of vehicle. I should be grateful if my noble friend could put me straight on this point.
I wish to move straight to Clauses 14 and 15. These, as your Lordships will recall, deal with the minimum age for training of heavy goods vehicle drivers. They will also allow a certain graduated scale of age groups to drive certain classes of vehicles. While this is all very well, we should be looking not only at the age of the potential driver but also at the class of instruction that he is receiving. At the present moment it is not necessary for a heavy goods vehicle driving instructor to be registered or qualified in any other way than that of having himself a heavy goods vehicle driving licence of the appropriate class.
866
I believe that my noble friend Lord Aberdare said that all heavy goods vehicle drivers were trained by the Road Transport Industry Training Board. I think it is true to say that the majority are trained by the Board, whose pass rate is exceptionally high, but many others are trained in commercial schools whose training programme conforms to the I.T.B. requirements. There is no requirement on the instructor having any particular qualification. Indeed, it is in my own knowledge that there are driving schools employing as teachers men of the appropriate age, with the appropriate heavy goods vehicle driving licence, but who have never taught anything at all in their lives, and who have no experience other than their own training for driving heavy goods vehicles on the roads. So one can see that a man with a licence who has been to a training school for two weeks, has paid £150 or £180 for his course of instruction and has taken a fairly stiff test, can then set up for reward in teaching young people to drive heavy goods vehicles.
I fail to understand why for such drivers we cannot have similar controls as we have for private motor cars. Your Lordships will recall that all motor car driving instructors are required to be registered with the Department of the Environment. Originally this was some consumer protection as to the monies they were paying for driving instruction and it also had some safety element in it as well. But surely it may be argued that it is vitally important that heavy goods vehicle drivers should have the correct form of instruction from people who have undertaken a teachers' training programme as well as a driver's instructional programme. My noble friend on the Front Bench indicates that I need not labour this point any further; I will only ask him whether he will consider setting down an Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is not necessary.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will explain why it is not necessary. I have read carefully and cannot find why it is not necessary, but no doubt he will explain.
May I touch now on Clause 20, together with the Schedule. There are

867
two particular points that I should like to have seen included in Clause 20 and the Schedule; they refer particularly to Sections 62 and 82 of the 1968 Act—that is, to the powers of the licensing authority. It is my view that the powers of the licensing authority when considering the application for an operating licence are too restricted. There is, for example, no power for the authority to demand any documents; nor do they have the power to examine the maintenance and repair facilities other than the applicant's own facilities. In the first case, they have no power to establish whether the applicant, whether he be an individual or a company, has financial resources to enable him to undertake the obligations of a licensed operator. They have no power to examine documents relating, perhaps, to a previous bankruptcy, or even to previous convictions. It would be much fairer if the authority could have such powers, which would ensure that the integrity of a potential operating licence holder is more correctly ascertained.
So far as repair and maintenance facilities are concerned, if the applicant states, "I have no facilities. I am getting Mr. So-and-So to attend to my repairs and maintenance", the licensing authority have no power to inspect such facilities. It is certainly within my knowledge that there are a number of operators who are using outside facilities which fall far short of any reasonable standard for the maintenance of any lorries.
The last point within this clause that I should like to mention is that set down in Section 69 of the 1968 Act, which deals with prohibition orders. That section says quite clearly that a licensing authority may revoke or suspend a licence, and it then sets down the various conditions that must be considered in the revocation or suspension of a licence. One of those conditions is the prohibition orders that may have been issued against an operator. The prohibition order is very often issued on the opinion of an examiner, and there is no appeal whatsoever against this order. If the operator, without doing any work at all to his lorry, takes it to a Ministry of Transport testing station, the examiner there may issue a G.V.10 clearance certificate because in his opinion no fault is to be found. This, again, is a matter of
868
opinion. The failure to issue a clearance certificate has an appeal content. Even if the G.V.10 is issued without appeal or on appeal, and is substantiated, the original prohibition order still remains on the record, and it can be a significant factor if the licensing authority should have any cause to consider the revocation or supension of an operator's licence.
In other respects, my Lords, I am very happy with nearly all the provisions of this Bill. However, I shall look forward to the Committee stage, when a number of detailed points can be further examined.
9.17 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords. I shall follow my noble friend by not making too many pleasantries, but I must say that he did at least end up his speech by being pleasant. In welcoming this Bill I should like to make a few brief observations. At this late hour I shall make some general comments only on Clauses 15, 16 and 17. dealing with public service vehicles. On Clause 15, may I congratulate the Government in going some way towards finding means of investigating the possibility of reducing the minimum age for P.S.V. drivers, while paying due attention to public safety aspects. I was very interested to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, had to say on that on this clause and also, particularly, on the clauses which follow.
On Clause 16. however, I am not too sure whether the Government have not gone too far by freeing the private motor car and the private mini-bus. It is now illegal for private car owners to carry passengers who pay the driver for doing so. Of this, I am sure, few people are aware, and I personally must confess that I was aware of this fact only recently. One could argue that this has been an anomaly and that, therefore, as such, it should be corrected. The trouble is that the provisions of this Bill create similar difficulties, and the new law would be equally unenforceable. The number of seats permitted in a private car is now being increased from eight to nine, in line with the E.E.C. requirements. This will entirely free these larger vehicles from adequate control in competing with public road transport. By doing so, the private motor car could have a serious effect on the economic running of P.S.V. services, leading in

869
some cases to their total disappearance, unless that would be contrary to the public interest. Companies ask local authorities for increased grants which they may he reluctant to pay as they do not appreciate the value of a service until they have lost it. The private mini-bus, by being able to carry larger numbers, could have a still worse effect. In time, one could envisage people running a nice sideline. Your Lordships may say, "Jolly good luck to them", but I fear that because of this many others could be deprived of public transport, and therefore the whole object of this clause could be defeated.
My noble friend Lady Macleod was very right to pay attention in her speech to the problems of people living in rural areas, but we must be careful that we do not (for the want of a better phrase) throw the baby out with the bath water and leave them in an even worse state than they were in before. My noble friend could say in his winding-up speech—and I should think he might do—that this is all protected by the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act, which concerns hackney carriages.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, that is not a point I am going to take.
Loan TEVIOT: It is a point which my noble friend could have taken, but I would remind him—I do not need to remind him now—that this Act was passed nearly half a century before the internal combustion engine was invented, and times have now changed. That being so, would it not be better to reform that Act before proceeding with this clause? Furthermore, there are considerable areas in the country where there is no hackney carriage legislation in force. That happens in most rural areas and in some boroughs—even those with a 30,000 population.
As I understand it, under Clause 17 the mini-bus now holding a maximum 12 seats which might be increased to 15, will be allowed to charge separate fares while remaining a contract carriage under a road service licence; whereas Clausel9 states that such licences will be granted only in the public interest. It appears that the public interest does not matter in the case of mini-buses. Admittedly, Clause 17 gives the proviso that they shall
870
not operate in an urban area on a specified bus route. This is where the trouble lies. As my noble friend knows, it has been impossible in the past adequately to define an urban area. Furthermore, what is a "bus route" or "stage carriage"? The definition given is, as I have said, quite inadequate. I will also mention that there are some surprising stage carriage routes these days and I think that the definition of those will need to be tidied up. Another unclear term which also will have to be dealt with is the good old "plying for hire". I hope that I have explained adequately my general points. It only remains for me to say that I shall be back again on Committee stage with some Amendments developing these ideas which I trust your Lordships will listen to sympathetically.
9.21 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this late hour. I will do so briefly. I have a couple of points to make, first on Clause 6, the parking of vehicles at junctions. I think this is extremely good so far as it goes. I think that apart from the safety aspect it would help the traffic to flow more freely. Anyone coming from Charing Cross towards your Lordships' House will notice that invariably there are delivery vehicles parked all the way along by the bus stops, so preventing the buses from coming to a halt by the stops and interfering with the traffic flow. That is only one example of many such junctions in central London.
There is one point that I want to mention about Clause 8 which I think is of some importance. The local authorities are to be required to carry out investigations on roads other than trunk roads within their area and to take such steps as appear to be necessary for improving safety and preventing accidents. It occurred to me that in the case of Greater London most of the serious accidents were on the metropolitan roads. To take Orpington as an example, a series of accidents take place at the crossroads at Court Road, many of them fatal. This situation has existed for a number of years. The difficulty is that the local authority is unable to take any action because these being metropolitan roads they come under the Greater London Council. As I understand it, this clause means that the Outer

871
London boroughs could carry out investigations on the metropolitan roads because they are not trunk roads; they are specifically defined as not being so under Section 17(1)(c) of the London Government Act. They would then be powerless to do anything about the accidents they were investigating. They would have no authority to make underpasses for pedestrians, or footbridges for pedestrians over particularly dangerous junctions such as the one I have mentioned in my former constituency.
The third point is that if the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, decided to put down an Amendment providing for compulsory seat belts I should be delighted to support him. I think this reform is overdue. I put down a Question in March 1972 asking whether the Government would consider making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, replied very courteously, as he always does, saying that he felt it a matter better done by persuasion than by compulsion. Since then we have spent £1½ million on the excellent advertisements by Jimmy Savile and I believe that they have had some effect; because the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, gave me at that time was that only one in 7 drivers used a seat belt, and I understand from the figures provided by the Automobile Association that now the numbers have gone up to 30 per cent.
But that is not good enough. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, showed what a tremendous carnage is still occurring as a result of our not following legislation which is now in force in many other countries, including Australia and New Zealand, and most recently in France. It was interesting to me when I was on a visit there last month and staying with some English friends to see how naturally they used seat belts when perhaps they would not have done so had they been in Britain. I do not believe that there is any public resistance to this. Polls taken, the last one in November. 1972, showed that the majority of people would be in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Once the Government showed a lead I think that the majority of drivers would use them.
872
My Lords, we are at the stage now that we were immediately prior to the introduction of the breathalyser legislation some years ago, when the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Marples, was saying that Governments should not get too far ahead of public opinion and that he was not yet convinced that if such legislation was introduced it would be respected. We have seen the result of introducing it: casualties were reduced considerably, although I am sorry to say that now there is a rather more casual observance of breathalyser legislation than when it was first introduced. I believe that if we took the opportunity provided by this Bill to introduce legislation, the public would come round to accepting it, and we should save many lives, and the tremendous amount of damage done to human beings as a result of road accidents would be greatly reduced.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, may I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Phillips who was unable to remain until this very late hour. She, and I, thought that this debate would have ended earlier. She regrets her absence, as I do, but I should have regretted it more if the hour were earlier. No doubt we shall hear from her during the Committee stage when we reach it.
9.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that this is an occasion when noble Lords, and indeed noble Baronesses, may be forgiven for having found that the debate has gone on rather longer than they expected. Although many of them have personally apologised for their inability to stay until the end of the debate, the House will forgive all of them if for once the courtesies have to be forgone. This is an important Bill and it is unfortunate that it had to take second place to the Emergency debate, but I hope we shall have further opportunities to hear from those who would have liked to stay until the end of the debate. I will see what I can do to deal at any rate with some of the points which have been raised.
I think that the Bill has been generally welcomed, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said at the beginning. I did not get a feeling from the speeches of other speakers that there was any hostility to what is in the Bill. The noble

873
Lord, Lord Champion, put his finger on the trouble, which is that here we are dealing with things that inexplicably, have been left out of previous legislation, or points that have been wrong in previous Bills. Also, we have been given many examples of matters which noble Lords think have, inexplicably, been left out of this Bill. So we have a miscellany of points which have been made. May I first make one general remark on matters which have been discussed and are already in the Bill, also upon what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, called the "markers" for the Committee stage and upon points which other noble Lords have mentioned relating to subjects which are not in the Bill. We are grateful for the warning and the information in advance, and we shall study what has been said.
It might be tidy if I attempted to deal first with some of the points raised about matters which are not in the Bill, and then come on to some others. I take these in a slightly haphazard order. My noble friend Lord Hacking gave us a very interesting speech on the question of breathalysers. I know very well that this is a matter that has puzzled the lawyers and the courts, and my noble friend was quite right to raise this question because it has come to this House, as he told us, sitting in its judicial capacity, on a number of occasions. I do not think I can go into the extremely complex details of this matter any more than the noble Lord himself did; but I assure him that the Government keep a very close eye on this matter. To some extent I think that not only the Government but everybody else can take some comfort in the way the courts themselves have sorted out many of the difficulties. I know people will go on finding—or thinking they can find—loopholes, because they hate to be disqualified; they will try almost anything. But it is astonishing how your Lordships' House, sitting in its judicial capacity, has managed to close up loophole after loophole, although I appreciate there may still be some, because the opportunity is almost unbounded. I am glad that the noble Lord has added to our knowledge from his professional capacity. I am not certain that a complete review of the whole of this subject is something one could embark upon in this Bill, because it is a large and complicated area. I
874
think we have to try to keep within the bounds of what is already a fairly general Bill, covering a large number of subjects.
I think noble Lords can be fairly satisfied that if the Government found that there was a major flaw in the legislation, they would not be slow to act. But so far it has been rather extraordinary and exceptional cases that have been used as examples, such as the noble Lord indicated. When one realises that convictions numbered about 40,000 in 1971, this is biting. I think it is the very fringe activities that concerned the noble Lord. So perhaps he will allow the Government to continue to keep an eye on this, even if we cannot put it all right under this legislation.
That leads straight to the question of seat belts raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, my noble friend Lord Montagu and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Again this is a matter that is at the moment very much in everybody's mind, and we realise that what is at stake here —as noble Lords have said—is something in the region of 13,000 serious casualties a year, and 1,000 fatalities. After all, those who do not protect themselves by wearing their seat belts run the risk of very disfiguring and disabling injuries to their faces—indeed, to their brains and to their whole future. We know from research and actual experience in the parts of the world mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, among others, that these accidents could be avoided.
Apparently people, despite Mr. Savile, still do not use the protection they can give themselves. But as against that folly, we have influential voices such as have been raised this afternoon and evening urging the Government to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. That in its turn raises objections, in principle, to the restriction of individual liberty or the question of enforceability.
What I should like to do this evening, on the Second Reading of this Bill, is to leave it—I hope this will be satisfactory for a Second Reading—that the Government will be considering the views that have been received, not only to-day, but previously, and they hope to be able to be in a position to report on the consultations within the next few weeks. I do not think I can take it further than that. But nobody can possibly doubt

875
this is a matter that needs to be taken very seriously and considered.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier raised some points of maximum abstruseness. I am afraid I do riot think there is room in this Bill for the axle measurements above ground level or the size of lettering on street signs. We may also find difficulty in dealing with pavement parking, even if the 1835 Act is a little out of date, which I am prepared to concede. The only comfort I can offer my noble friend on his list is that there is at any rate something in the weighing provisions of this Bill to deal with overloading and the individual axle loads that can now be dealt with compulsorily or will be dealt with under Clause 13 of the Bill.
Again, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, that, though I have the greatest sympathy in regard to the fatalities that arise from school children running out from behind buses and other unfortunate accidents of this sort, we are getting into an area which involves fairly complicated consultation and fairly complicated equipment. The noble Lord's speech indicated that much. I wonder, again, whether in a comparatively short Bill like this we can fit in all these ideas, worthy though they are and much though one would desire them to save lives. It is simply a question of the scope of the possible. I believe noble Lords in all parts of the House would have so many good ideas for increasing road safety, perhaps most of which alas‡ we shall not be able to fit into this Bill. But I welcome the fact that noble Lords have put these points forward, because it is always worthwhile to hear the views of those who know about such matters, and of course the Government are pleased to consider them.
My Lords, that brings me to some of the matters contained in the Bill, a number of which have been the subject of comment this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised a number of points on Clauses 1 to 5, among them the question of how long the offence was required to have been committed before the six months in the Magistrates' Courts Act expired. The whole of this problem is extremely complicated. What I hope the noble Lord will do on this area of the Bill, if he is still puzzled by some things when, with his usual care, he has
876
read the Bill again, is to put down probing Amendments or Amendments to suggest alterations so that we may discuss these matters fully. I could give a long exposition of how this works, but I think at this stage of the evening, when I have already been speaking for 10 minutes, that would be rather too much. But this does not mean to say that we cannot discuss this question in great detail in the Committee stage and subsequent stages of the Bill.
I am satisfied—and I have been through them carefully—that the arrangements that have been made have produced a result whereby the owner, if he was not the driver, is protected, as far as it is possible to protect him. In this respect we have gone a long way. This, unfortunately, runs contrary to what another noble Lord said when suggesting that we should be rather tougher on the owner. It may be that we shall have to debate the philosophy as well as the details of this question in Committee. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, thought that these clauses were unexceptionable.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned diplomatic immunity and foreign drivers. This is a difficult area. I suspect that the constitutional position—the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will remember this, as I do, from legal training—is such that if they are parking their cars in wrong places there is little we can do about it, except possibly to rely on Lord Janner's son, who produces the "league table" in another place of the countries which offend most. Some extraordinary statistics appear in Written Answers in another place, and I hope they put some of those countries to shame for failing to pay the fines incurred by their diplomatic representatives. So far as foreigners are concerned, I suppose to some extent it is reciproc4 because the Britisher who parks somewhere that he should not park when he is abroad will probably come back again unscathed, as foreigners do in this country. It is difficult to devise a method which will satisfactorily require a person here on a short visit to came back and face the courts in this country. And, of course, it is not only parking offences to which this applies but to other serious driving offences as well. Again, the Government are considering this matter, though I do not think we have yet found the answer.

877
I was glad that noble Lords who considered the road safety aspects of this matter, such as my noble friends Lord Monck, Lord Ferrier and Lord Montagu, welcomed them. I dare say that my noble friend Lord Monck was a little mystified by some of the things which happened to white lines. I do not think he can be blamed, but I am not sure that this is a matter for legislation so much as one for local authority administration. As for the junctions, the markings and the various rules mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am sure we can talk more about these things at subsequent stages of the Bill rather than go into them further tonight. There will have to be exceptions, but noble Lords will wish to see them kept to a minimum, and my noble friends will be glad to consider these later on when we come to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked about the importance of bus lanes. Under the Functions of Traffic Wardens Orders, it is possible to allow traffic wardens to police bus lanes. I think it is possible for them to do that without further specific legislation. We have already got the powers and therefore we are assembling the ability, with the additions in this Bill, to enable bus lanes to be properly operated.
Noble Lords showed a great interest, and rightly so, in prospective disabilities. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier were both looking at the difficult problem of the length of time for which a driving licence could be issued without someone having to disclose that something was medically wrong. My noble friend Lord Ferrier suggested five years for the length of the licence. On balance, we think that a licence lasting to the age of 70 is a really worthwhile saving, in terms of expense and manpower. Therefore it has to be bolstered by the need to show to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the existence, or the incipience, of a disabling disease. There are diseases which are progressive, alas‡: diseases like sclerosis, arthritis and cataract, which may not at one particular stage be sufficient to deprive a person of his driving licence. However, it is well that people should be required to pass on the information that they are suffering from such diseases so that a check on the progress of the diseases may be carried out and,
878
if it becomes a disability, then I am afraid that unfortunately the licence may have to be withdrawn. It is a difficult balance to draw, but if you are going to have a licensing system which allows a licence to go on for as long as this—and we think there are advantages in it—then equally one has to be careful on the other side as well; and I doubt whether, in practice, this is going to be unenforceable or, indeed, held to be a very great restriction on people's liberty and wellbeing.
The question in Clause 13 of axle weights was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and he mentioned the Transport and General Workers' Union. In fact, the devices that the noble Lord wanted can already be required under the existing powers of the 1972 Act—or rather the Construction and Use Regulations made under it. What we are really doing in Clause 13 is looking at enforceability; we are trying to make it a requirement that drivers should take their vehicles over the individual axle weighing weighbridge in the correct way and at the correct speed. I do not thank any further powers are needed to provide this equipment. It may therefore be that if the noble Lord pursues this matter further he will find that we do not need any change in the law to meet that point.
Under Clause 14, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned some important points about heavy goods vehicle instruction. I should like to try to reassure him on this subject, because I indicated that I would do so. If I may put it as briefly as I can, detailed discussions have been held between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Employment and employers and employees in the industry. Agreement has been reached on a training scheme which will provide for the recruitment and progressive training of young people. A scheme has been agreed upon in order to carry this out. The answer to my noble friend's point about training is that under a part of the scheme this training will be undertaken in accordance with certain agreed and approved syllabuses, and practical driving instruction (and my noble friend was particularly concerned about that) must be given and assessed by instructors who have satisfactorily completed a course of training approved by the committee under the

879
scheme. Other instruction may be given by the employer or by educational or other training establishments. We have progress by voluntary agreement, if not all the way, at any rate along the way the noble Lord wanted to see.
He raised some incredibly complicated points under Clause 20 and Schedule 4. These are so detailed, and the matter is so complex, that it would be better to leave it, if he will forgive me, until another stage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, mentioned the clauses about buses, as did my noble friend Lady Macleod, who welcomed these provisions; while my noble friend Lord Teviot, who was a little critical, thought we might have gone a little too far on this matter. Without going into it in too much detail, the best thing to do is what I asked when I was considering this matter: to look at some of the instances of what the Bill would allow people to do in a perfectly sensible way but which the law previously forbade them to do. My noble friend Lord Teviot referred to what one could do about taking people in a car. I know that this point is tied up with taxis and hackney carriage legislation. Even under public service vehicle licensing, it seems to be very restricted. As the law stands now, it is generally an offence for a car owner to offer lifts at separate fares without a public service vehicle licence and a road service licence as well —neither of which is at all easy to get. The result is, as my noble friend admitted, that many motorists knowingly or, as is more likely, unknowlingly break the law regularly; but of course there is negligible risk of detection.
On the other hand, reputable bodies, like women's institutions, who would like sensibly to be able to do this, dare not organise lifts of this sort for any kind of payment, because they know very well what the law is. The law as it stands is effective in the one area where it specifically operates against the public interest. Clause 16(1) would remove the anomaly. The remote village in the Cotswolds to which my noble friend Lady Macleod referred can also be dealt with under Clause 16(2). Such vehicles as Dormobiles are increasingly popular with social clubs, and clubs have been formed largely to provide transport from remote villages which are now without a bus service. Clubs of
880
this sort often find it difficult to meet the administrative and financial criteria to get their public service vehicle licence, let alone their road service vehicle licence This is something on which we think we can relax the law and enable people to live much more easily in these villages, without being totally cut off by the lack of their own car.
My Lords, there is no doubt that apart—if I may put it this way—from the ever fresh and green subject of whether it is right to bring different parts of a Bill under different initiation orders about which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has indeed addressed the House before now, I think the real substance or the real heat of the argument on the Bill is undoubtedly going to arise on Clause 24 and Schedule 5. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned this as also did my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, made a powerful speech about it, all of which we should like to study. One has to get this into context, because although it is perfectly true that we are dealing with imprisonment, suspended sentences, community service orders and many other things in theory, we have to see the extent to which these have been used. The central issue in withdrawing from magistrates' courts the power to pass sentences of imprisonment and others as well for the more serious motoring offences is one of some importance, and as I said in my speech on the humble Address, one that I recognised to be controversial, and so it has proved.
Our main objectives are twofold: first of all, it has been said many times by this Government that our penal policy is to replace custodial measures where we can with non-custodial alternatives. If we cannot do this in the field of motoring offences where can we do it? This must be a place where the test of this policy must be examined and looked at with great care. The second point is the administrative objective of enabling the magistrates' courts—so rightly praised by the noble Lord, Lord Janner—to relieve some of the burden imposed on the Crown Court by large numbers of fairly minor road traffic cases where the defendant exercises his right to elect trial by jury. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, mentioned the Committee under Lord Justice James, but I do not think that

881
the present Bill impinges on the principle of that. That covers a much wider field. It may be prayed in aid, but in fact it is a very small element in the whole area being looked at by Lord Justice James and I do not think that anything he is looking at is affected in terms of principle by what we are putting forward here. In fact, we think we have a good opportunity here to rationalise the situation in respect of a large body of offences which do not merit trial by jury.
Although the noble Lord mentioned forgeries, falsifications and so on and he is quite right that they are involved here, in fact they have not merited very many prison sentences either, nor, indeed I am advised, have there been very many suspended sentences which have been the subject matter of what my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve was talking about. There will be the power to proceed on indictment in the case of the prosecution—the prosecution can choose in serious cases—and then of course the Crown Court will be able to pass sentences of imprisonment if it thinks this necessary. I know that there are the counter arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, put to us in the course of consultations: that we should fail in our objective of reducing the number of cases going to the Crown Court because the prosecution would use the indictment more often, or, alternatively, as the noble Lord said, the magistrates would refuse applications for a summary trial more frequently. This is a matter of speculation, but our judgment is that this would not be so, and that on balance we would satisfactorily relieve the Crown Court of a substantial amount of the burden that they have arising out of these hybrid cases.
I cannot stress too strongly that the removal of magistrates' power to send people to prison for offences of this kind is not intended by the Government in any way to be a weakening of the law. In fact, if one looks at the substantial increase in the maximum fines on summary conviction that the magistrates would be able to impose, one cannot possibly have any doubts of our acceptance of the seriousness of these offences. Certainly there is nothing by way of criticism of the method in which magistrates haw previously exercised their powers.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, might I ask this? If, as the noble Viscount says, one of the principles the Government have in mind in removing the powers of magistrates to send to prison for these offences is that they want to send fewer people to prison, and for a shorter period of time, are they prepared to take some step to reduce the penalties of imprisonment that can he imposed by the Crown Court on indictment?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am not altogether certain that this follows from the argument about the magistrates' courts. The argument that I thought was being put forward by those who are advocating the retention of the status quo, or something like it, was that the magistrates themselves ought to retain powers to imprison. It is perfectly true, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, that 96 per cent., I think, of these cases are dealt with by the magistrates. Therefore, if one looks at the matter statistically the likelihood of imprisonment being imposed seems very much greater if the power resides with magistrates than if it resides with the Crown Court. What we think is that the magistrates should have the powers to fine and that only the very serious cases should go to the Crown Court, in which case I accept that there may be a necessity to imprison or to send to borstal. It seems to me that we are attempting to tackle this matter at the right end by taking away the power to imprison in the less serious offence, while retaining the opportunity if it is necessary to be used in the more serious ones. I do not think there is any departure here from the Government's general attitude.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt; I appreciate it is very late and so on. But on the point the noble Viscount made about the James Committee, surely it is within the terms of reference of the James Committee to deal with a matter of this kind? They are going very thoroughly into the whole position. Does not he think that in the circumstances it might be left to them to make a decision, or at least to give advice as to what kind of decision should be taken?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords, of course, and their decision could impinge upon this. What

883
I am saying is that the matters they are looking at are of very substantial principle. They go to the very root of the whole method. There are so many things involved. There are cases which start off before magistrates sitting as examining magistrates and which are turned into summary trials under Section 18(3); there are hybrid cases, cases which are being tried summarily and then the magistrates decide to deal with them by committing them to the Crown Court. There is a whole area here. There are options on one side; there are options on the other. To pick out a comparatively small number of cases, as is being done in this Bill, does not go to the principle of what the James Committee are looking at. I am afraid I shall just have to disagree with the noble Lord on this point.
The fact is that 5 per cent. of the Crown Court cases at the present moment are hybrid road traffic offences. That does not mean 5 per cent. of the workload, because of course, ex hypothesi, those are not guilty pleas, so they are tried; and they are taking up a great deal of the time of the Crown Courts. Ninety-six per cent. of the cases that go there go at the election of the defendant because he wants a jury trial. Just as an example of the amount by which the matter is loaded on to the Crown Courts because of the pure option that the defendant has, 96 per cent. is a remarkable indication that it is not the prosecution that is choosing the most serious cases to take to the Crown Courts. So we think that if we give the magistrates the extra powers, they will continue to show the restraint and discretion that they have already shown. They have already shown this in a sparing use of custodial sentences and it will enable us to advance along the road that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, agrees with the Government we should pursue, to try to keep people out of prison unless it is absolutely necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, asked us to take account of this, and of course we shall do so, but may I make one final plea on this subject? I see that I have spoken for as long to-night as I did last night, and I apoligise to the House, but I want to say this last thing. Rather than say to the Government. "Please put down Amendments", which is what
884
the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, we have set out in detail in this Bill, in Clause 24 and in Schedule 5, what we propose. We think at the moment that we have got this right, but I would suggest to noble Lords, and particularly those who are skilled in and have spoken on this subject, that they could assist everybody by examining the Bill in detail and criticising by way of specific Amendment where they think we have got it wrong rather than put down an Amendment to leave out Schedule 5 and Clause 24, which will get nobody anywhere. Let us attack this thing by looking at the details of the matter. I shall look forward to this. I am sure that I can rely on the assiduity of noble Lords who are so very good at this, and that we shall really have a constructive and successful discussion on this matter, to which I very much look forward and which will really help the Government in trying to ensure that we really have got this right.
I am sorry that I have not answered all the questions raised, but I think I have dealt with some of the major issues. There will be substantial debates during the later stages of this Bill. I am very glad indeed that noble Lords have welcomed it to-night and I hope that it may now receive its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2£, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (SALT) ORDER 1973
10.3 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL rose to move, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Salt) Order 1973, laid before the House on October 16, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a pity that the introduction of these two measures has been delayed somewhat by necessary changes in business. I will try to be as brief as possible, and I think it may be for the convenience of the House, since both these Orders have a similar effect, if I speak to them together. The background to these two Orders was originally very well described by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who I feel

885
knows quite a bit about selling foodstuffs, in the debate in this House in November, 1970, when he said:
"… the C.B.I. recently said that industry is now irrevocably committed to metrication and that to delay is to get the worst of both worlds."—(OFFICIAL REPORT; 30 /11/70; col. 350.)
In the course of a debate on metrication in another place earlier this year, the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, Sir Geoffrey Howe, said that following discussions with industry he proposed to advertise draft Orders which would provide for the sale of pasta and salt in metric units. This is a further and necessary step to implement the Government's undertaking in its White Paper on Metrication, to remove barriers to the wider use of the metric system in this country.
Pasta and salt are included among the lists in the Weights and Measures Act of some forty or so basic foods which, when they are sold pre-packed, and only when they are sold pre-packed, may at present only be sold in imperial quantities. I may add that Italy at present also prescribe quantities for the sale of pre-packed pasta. These Orders will not oblige manufacturers to pack pasta and salt in metric quantities, but make available to them the option between continuing to use the imperial quantities specified in Article 4(a)(i) of the two Draft Orders, or they can now change to the new metric range specified in the following sections of the Orders.
Before my right honourable friend can exercise his order-making powers under the Weights and Measures Act 1963, he is required by the Act to satisfy himself that these proposals are generally acceptable to all organisations as appear to him to be representative of the interests substantially affected by the Orders. The proposals have been circulated to a wide range of the consumer and trade organisations (some 30, I believe) and enforcement bodies, a large number of which have made comments, particularly on points of detail. There was no adverse criticism of these proposals. Manufacturers in particular welcomed this positive move by the Government to remove obstacles to metrication in the retail food sector where the industry at large was keen to make the change. They had long since accepted the principle of metrica-
886
tion, particularly following our entry into the E.E.C.
Consumers generally recognised that metrication must inevitably come, but they were naturally concerned that the Government should do all in their power to see that there was an orderly change and that the consumer was adequately protected and informed about the changes that would be taking place. Perhaps I may quote what Sir Geoffrey Howe said in another place on these points:
"At present I have in mind two modest commodities, salt and pasta, and perhaps one or two others. Other important commodities will follow in, I hope, an orderly fashion. These orders and their timing will be tailored to the particular needs of the industry and of the consumer. I realise that, even with this carefully controlled process, the consumer needs to be assured about the impact on prices. This is why the careful presentation of the facts and information will be essential…."
[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 24/7/73; col. 1432.]
I am trying not to comment further on such issues of prices at this juncture, although I can readily do so if pushed. I think it is here that we should pay tribute to the important work which the Metrication Board is doing to educate and help the consumer now that the change is switching from the industrial to the retail sector. They have planned an extensive programme of work over the next 12 months to provide practical help to consumers in the form of pocket conversion aids and comparison wall charts for display in shops. They have been successful in enlisting the support of some manufacturers who will helpfully display information on their packs to assist the consumer to familiarise himself or herself with the new sizes, and to continue to be able to choose the best buy for the family from the information provided. The Metrication Board and the Department of Trade and Industry are also actively working on other recommendations of the Consumer Safeguards Group.
My Lords, I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships that in making these modest moves forward, which must inevitably bring benefits through rationalisation to industry and through a greater variety and more competitive supply of goods to the consumer from domestic and Continental sources, the Government are striving to ensure an orderly change to the metric system with

887
the minimum of risk of confusion to the consumer. In closing, may I remind your Lordships again that these Orders are entirely permissive. They are not in any sense obligatory. They have been widely advertised and they have not been opposed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Salt) Order 1973, laid before the House on 16th October, be approved.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Lord on his short but excellent maiden speech from the Despatch Box. I understand that there are 51 essential items which will have to be dealt with in a similar manner, and I am therefore wondering why the Orders before your Lordships' House to-night are in respect of pasta and salt and not, for instance, sugar or tea. Can the Minister say why the Pasta Order comes into operation on July 1. 1974, while the Salt Order is delayed until January 1, 1975, which is 14 months ahead?
10.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I know that at this hour the one thing the House would like is for me to be as brief as possible, and I will try to be, but there are one or two things which I should like to say. First of all, I must declare an interest in so far as I am technical adviser to the Consumers' Association. All consumer organisations which have been consulted welcome these Orders. But what about the other 51 products? It is not true that you can always catch a bird by putting salt on its tail. The programme for metrication as a whole is going slower than anticipated; it was scheduled for 1965 to 1975. We have accepted the idea of metrication, so have consumer organisations; so there is no need to argue the case at this moment. But I should just like to note the following points. Out of 141 countries in the world 133 are going metric. The U.S.A. have legislation halfway through Congress. The U.S.A. industrial giants, Fords, Caterpillars, I.B.M., and I think some others, have already decided to go ahead with metrication straight away. With regard to progress in other countries, Australia
888
and New Zealand started later than we did but are now well in advance of us. Horse racing in 1972 was metric in weights and distances.
With regard to the consumer viewpoint, very briefly, as we are going metric, it is admitted that it must involve some disturbance to consumers. What we want is orderly planned progress, but the speed must not be too slow. We want a minimum period during which both metric and Imperial measures exist for the same class of goods. Loose and packaged goods should go metric at the same time. In this case I think diving off the deep end is far better than slowly stepping inch by inch into the cold water. We cannot keep the metricated E.E.C. products out of the country after 1977, and therefore it really is rather essential that consumers should have got used to metrication by then, and preferably considerably before then.
What is needed to speed up things? First of all, leadership from the Government. We need more of these regulations for the 51 products in this class, which I think somebody mentioned. Also more Government contracts could well follow the example of the Department of the Environment. This does a very great deal of good in speeding up metrication, which in most areas, of course, is voluntary. I can understand the Governments' hesitation, but I think they must steel themselves to be bold and resolute in pushing forward with metrication. There is, of course, a noisy, ill-informed vocal opposition, and this was in evidence in another place. I ask them to disregard it. It is absolute rubbish to talk about metrication by stealth. In any case, there is an 18 months delay in some products before the regulations become effective, which is certainly after the next General Election. I am sure that this should not become a Party issue.
Unless inflation is curbed, the worry about using metrication as an opportunity for increased prices is nothing like so serious, because the rise in prices will quickly overtake any tendency to put them up during the metrication period. If, of course, in the happy event when they become effective 18 months later we have cured inflation, we shall all say, "Please look at this carefully to see that advantage is not taken of the fact".

889
I have only two more points to make. First of all, we want a cut-off date. It may be a little too early to worry about this, but the one thing we do not want is a continuing mixture of metric and Imperial units. This is absolute anathema to consumers. Finally, unit pricing could be a tremendous help to consumers during and after the changeover.
10.15 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, I must first say that he managed to find another eleven commodities which, so far as I am aware, are unknown to the Government at this time. My information was that there were about 40 to be covered. However, we intend to press on as fast as seems practicable. The question about the dates is of wider interest because the whole principle has been to move when the industries are ready to move. It seems that the salt manufacturers needed a little longer to make the conversion of some of their plant. In overall timing it was hoped that the changes would have been made by the end of 1975, and I think that we are obliged to have ceased to discriminate against metric units by October, 1976, and the Imperial units—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, called it the "cut-off point are supposed to disappear by the end of 1979.
May I conclude by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his trenchant support of the principle lying behind these Orders. I can assure him that we are to some extent controlled by the speed with which industry moves,
890
but it may be that the trickle of these Orders will become a flood.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (PASTA) ORDER 1973
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Pasta) Order 1973, laid before the House on October 16, be approved.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.