Lords Sitting of 18 June 1974

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that the Lord Great Chamberlain received yesterday evening the following Message from Her Majesty the Queen:
"Lord Great Chamberlain, I was very greatly shocked by the explosion in Westminster Hall this morning. I am very distressed about the injuries and damage that this has caused. Please convey my regret to the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. Elizabeth Regina."
My Lords, I am sure that it would be your Lordships' wish that I should return on behalf of this House an appropriate message of thanks to Her Majesty for Her gracious message.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

E.E.C. AND THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
2.37 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much of Britain's balance of payments deficit is the result of British membership of the E.E.C.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, membership of the European Communities has probably affected the United Kingdom balance of payments in a number of different ways. It is impossible to quantify all of these, or to separate their impact from that of a number of other factors. But our visible trade deficit with the other countries of the E.E.C.
794
increased to £1,119 million in 1973, compared with £510 million in 1972. This followed increases in the deficit in both the previous two years.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but may I ask him whether he is aware that he has not really answered my Question? Could he link up the first part of his Answer, which seemed to be, "We do not know", and the second part, which seemed to be, "Well, it looks not too good", and give us the Government's view as to whether or not the deficit is due to our Membership of the Community?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, interpretation of the impact of membership on the other areas of the balance of payments—such as, for example, other components in the invisible balance or direct investment—is made even more difficult by the absence of statistics. But considerable efforts are being made to improve the situation in this respect.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on joining the Common Market we were promised that we would have an El Dorado, and that those of us who said that the effect on the balance of payments would amount to £1,000 million were derided? Is the Minister also aware that, as result of joining the Common Market, our balance of payments deficit this year is running at the rate of £1,600 million?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I think we should bear in mind that the deficit with the original Six, expressed as a percentage of the United Kingdom's total trade with those countries, increased at very much the same rate as the deficit with our former EFTA partners.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to tell us of any other benefits which we have received from our entry to the Common Market, apart from this substantial increase in the balance of payments deficit?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I should have thought that that was another question.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, would it not have saved time if the noble Lord had said, quite frankly, "We do not know"?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I think we agree that there is an absence of statistics. Is my noble friend aware that the boondogglers who tried to rush us into the Common Market spent thousands of pounds advertising that the wages of the British worker would be worth £10 a week more when we joined? On what statistics was that piece of imagination based?
LORD JACQUES: I certainly could not answer that question, my Lords.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, if the Government have answered this Question with the reply, "We do not know", how can they be so definite in their desire to take Britain out of the Common Market?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I believe there is one point that should be made. It appears that the main reason for the increase in our deficit with the E.E.C. countries is the marked deterioration in the terms of trade, due to depreciation of the pound sterling in relation to E.E.C. currencies, particularly the deutschmark. In fact, the effective depreciation of the pound sterling in 1973 in relation to other E.E.C. currencies was as high as 13 per cent.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those who pushed us into the Common Market also did not know what was going to happen? Therefore, was it wise to push us in without having all the available facts?
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, if these figures are prima facie correct, the fault may be not so much in the Market as in ourselves?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, it is certainly partly within ourselves.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, that is sheer Celtic imagination.

PARENTS' BLOOD GROUPS
THE EARL OF ARRAN: 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 facilities are freely available in the National Health Service for prospective parents to ascertain their respective blood groups and, if so, whether they will encourage their use in order to reduce the number of mentally and physically handicapped children born to parents with incompatible blood groups.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords. blood grouping facilities are available in the National Health Service as needed, and they are provided when considered necessary by a doctor. It may be that the noble Earl has in mind incompatible blood groups of prospective parents which may cause haemolytic disease in the baby which, if untreated, could lead to physical and mental handicap. The blood grouping of pregnant women is already determined routinely as part of ante-natal care to identify those at risk of producing a baby affected by this disease. Women identified as at risk of producing an affected baby and who are considered suitable are given, after confinement or abortion, an injection of Anti-D immunoglobulin to reduce the risk of the disease occurring in a future baby.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who went much further than I had hoped he would. May I ask Her Majesty's Government to encourage research into the possible advantages to parents, and to the unfortunate children, of whom there are many thousands, in the hope of reducing human unhappiness?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is a complicated matter, as many of your Lordships will know, and I think it would be difficult for me to go into it in the time normally taken up by Question Time. About 5 children in 1,000 are born with haemolytic disease of the newborn, leading to about 200 deaths per annum. It will perhaps be of considerable interest to the noble Earl to know that a memorandum of guidance for

797
doctors on haemolytic disease of the newborn is currently under revision by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to tell the noble Earl and your Lordships generally that there is in being a service known as genetic counselling, which means that parents needing advice on the likelihood of their having a child with inherited disease can obtain advice from their family doctor, who can, if need be, refer them to a specialist genetic counselling centre. I think this probably meets the concern of the noble Earl.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the health centres that have been set up throughout the country are doing a wonderful service in regard to that part of the National Health Service covered by the Question of the noble Earl to my noble friend; and that the advice that parents receive, on a clinical basis, so far as their children are concerned is, so far as I know, adequate? My information is that they are doing a valuable service, and I hope that service will continue.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, while agreeing with the replies of the noble Lord the Minister, and while sympathising with the aims of the noble Earl, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government would not agree that there are a large number of cases of congenital and hereditary diseases which could not be detected by this determination of blood groups and that there are numerous marriages of people with incompatible blood groups which do not give rise to any trouble at all? Would he further inform us as to whether clinics for genetic counselling are now available in every region in the country? I think they nearly are, but I should like to know whether the Minister can give us the information.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, this is a complicated matter. I am not sure whether every district in fact has a genetic counselling service. My recollection is that there are quite a number of them, but they are not as widespread as I think we should like them to be. I am sorry, but I have forgotten the first point that the noble Lord raised.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, my first point was simply whether Her Majesty's
798
Government agreed that of course there are many cases which could not be detected by the simple determination of blood groups. But the more important question was about the genetic counselling clinics.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is one of the reasons why I made it clear at the beginning that this is such a complicated matter that I hoped I would not be expected to go into it, but the noble Lord is perfectly right.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, even in those areas where there are genetic clinics, they are ineffective unless wide publicity is given to the whole question?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is perfectly true, but I did point out that this matter is being reviewed by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee. We hope that, when the memorandum of guidance for doctors is available, attention will be drawn to the existence of these genetic counselling centres.

THE CELTIC SEA
2.48 p.m.
LORD DIGBY: 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 the term "Celtic Sea" is used on Admiralty charts and other official publications; if so, what area is so defined; and whether that term will be used when granting licences for the exploration of oil and gas.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, the use of the term "Celtic Sea" has been approved by the Naval Hydrographer to define the area of sea bounded roughly by lines joining Ushant, Lands End, Hartland Point, Lundy Island, St. Govan's Head and Rosslare; thence following the coast of Ireland South to Mizzen Head and along the 200 metre isobath to approximately the latitude of Ushant. It will be shown on new editions of the relevant chart. Licences to search for oil and gas are granted in respect of specified numbered blocks, and not in respect of named areas.
LORD DIGBY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that detailed reply, may I also ask the Government to bear in mind that South-West England is particularly well placed to provide on-shore facilities for the exploration of oil and gas in most of this extensive area?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, a supply base has already been set up in Pembroke, and the South-West of England would obviously be suitable for other bases if the exploration results showed that this was necessary.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on May 3 last there was laid before Parliament a Statutory Instrument called The Herring (Celtic Sea) Licensing Order 1974, in the Schedule to which the Celtic Sea is defined as:
"The area of sea lying to the south-east of Eire bounded by a line beginning at a point on the coast of Eire in 52° 30′ N latitude, thence due east to the coast of Wales, thence in a south-westerly and southerly direction along the coast of Wales to a point in 5° W longitude …",
and so on for another six or seven lines? Will he say whether or not this is the same definition as the one he has given us?
LORD HUGHES: The brief and strictly correct answer to that is, no, my Lords, I was not so aware. I am prepared to assume that I am now aware of it, and I would expect that if you look at it it means that you start at one point and go round in the opposite direction.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord confirm that the term "Celtic Sea" was coined by two oilmen working for a very well known company in a very expansive moment after a prolonged luncheon? Would the noble Lord see what he can do to change the geography after lunch one day?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords; fot once the noble Lord's information is wrong. The term was first used during a fisheries conference held in Dublin in 1930. I am not aware whether it was pre- or post-luncheon.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether there has been collaboration with France about the naming and delimitation of this area?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, that is another question. If it were to be put down either 1 or my noble friend Lord Balogh would be happy to answer it.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, could it be called the Sea of Wales and be definite about it? It was stolen by the English.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it could be if we were searching for trouble.

THE COAL INDUSTRY
2.52 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Balogh will be making a Statement on the coal industry at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

OLD LONDON ROAD, HYTHE, BURIAL GROUND BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
2.53 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I believe that it is self-explanatory. One purpose of the Motion is that the Committee on European Communities may wish from time to time to confer with a similar Committee in the House of Commons and part of the Motion makes this possible.
In regard to the second part, as the House will know, if the other place wishes to interview a noble Lord it requires a Message to be sent to this House. The object of that part of the Motion is to avoid the necessity of receiving Messages on numerous occasions. I should make it quite clear that a noble Lord need attend a Commons Committee only if he so wishes. Turning to the third part, here we must recognise that the Committee may well sit during a Recess. At the present moment, before a Report is published an Order of the House is required. But clearly these Reports should be available to the House,

801
and this part of the Motion will make that possible.
My Lords, in regard to our relations with another place in Committee, I understand that the House of Commons will be moving a similar Motion so that all matters will be reciprocal. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That (1) the Select Committee on the European Communities, or any sub-Committee appointed by the Committee, have leave to confer with any Committee, or any sub-Committee of it, appointed by the Commons on European Secondary Legislation &c.; and (2) any Lord requested by the Committee on European Secondary Legislation & c. of the House of Commons to attend as a Witness before them or before any sub-Committee appointed by them shall have the leave of this House so to attend if his Lordship thinks fit; and (3) the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the European Communities Committee was set up after a great deal of discussion in your Lordships' House. I am sure that if there are procedures which need to be adopted to enable it to operate as effectively and as smoothly as possible, we should take those measures. It seems to me that what the noble Lord has said indicates that the three proposals which he has put before the House will have that effect. The House of Commons also has its own Committee. There might have been advantages in the two Committees working more closely together than they do, but that is perhaps for a later stage and we should certainly take into account what the Leader of the House has said. Accordingly, I should like to support the proposals that have been made.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, as the Chairman of the Select Committee of last year, may I welcome these important resolutions. Unfortunately, a physical accident prevented me from being in your Lordships' House on the day when the new Committee was set up; so may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader of the House and both sides of the House on the character and quality of the new Committee, and especially on
802
the choice of the Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, have said. I am sure that the proposals I have put before the House will not only make the work of the Committee much easier but it may well help it to move to the degree of co-operation which I know most Members of your Lordships' House would wish for.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them of paragraphs (1) and (2).

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Reduction of minimum age for driving certain vehicles
"(1) In subsection (3) of section 4 of the 1972 Act (regulations may modify minimum ages for driving in certain defined cases) in paragraph (a) (power to increase age for driving certain articulated vehicles) after the word "that", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "except in the case of a person who fulfils the conditions specified for the purpose of paragraph (d) below" and at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be added the following paragraph:—
"(d) that, in the case of a person who fulfils such conditions as may be specified in the regulations with respect to his training and employment (including membership of a training scheme approved by the Secretary of State), the age under which he may not drive a vehicle falling within paragraph 4 of the Table set out in subsection (1) above, other than a road roller, shall, if the vehicle

803
is of a class specified in the regulations, be 18 instead of 21."
(2) In section 114 of the 1972 Act (grant of heavy goods vehicle drivers' licences) in subsection (3) (issue of provisional licence subject to prescribed conditions) after the words "(2) above" there shall be inserted the words "or a full licence granted to an applicant who is under the age of 21 on the date of the application" and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(4) It shall be an offence for a person to employ another person who is under the age of 21 to drive a heavy goods vehicle of any class in contravention of any prescribed conditions subject to which that other person's licence is issued."
(3) In section 115 of the 1972 Act (duration of heavy goods vehicle drivers' licences) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, if there come into existence, in relation to the holder of a heavy goods vehicle drivers' licence who is under the age of 21, such circumstances as may be prescribed relating to his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle, the licensing authority of the area in which the licence was granted shall revoke the licence."
(4) Section 116 of the 1972 Act (disqualification on revocation of heavy goods vehicle

"114(4)

Employing a person under 21 to "drive heavy goods vehicle in contravention of conditions of heavy goods vehicle driver's licence.

Summarily.

£100.

—

—

Section 181 applies.""

The noble Lord said: On behalf of myself and my noble friends I beg to move Amendment No. 12. I am sure that the object of this new clause must be quite obvious to the noble Lord opposite and to the rest of the Committee because it puts back into the Bill a clause which was in the original Road Traffic Bill introduced by us when we were in Government. Perhaps it would be convenient if we discussed Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together, because the principles underlying both clauses are the same. The first one deals with drivers of heavy goods vehicles and the second one deals with drivers of buses.
The first new clause, that is Amendment No. 12, would allow the Secretary of State to license persons under 21 to drive heavy goods vehicles, within the framework of a professional training scheme. We believe that such a training scheme is of the very greatest importance if, in the future, we are to be certain of getting enough drivers of heavy goods vehicles and, above all, if they are to be properly trained. I am sure that your
driver's licence) shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—
(a) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Where in pursuance of section 115(1A) of this Act the licensing authority is required to revoke the heavy goods vehicle drivers' licence of a person under the age of 21, the authority shall order that person to be disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence until he attains the age of 21", and
(b) at the end of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4) If, while the holder of a heavy goods vehicle driver's licence is disqualified under subsection (1A) above, the circumstances prescribed for the purposes of section 115(1A) of this Act cease to exist in his case, then, on an application made to the authority in that behalf, the licensing authority of the traffic area where he resides shall remove the disqualification, but so long as the disqualification continues in force a heavy goods vehicle driver's licence shall not be granted to him and any such licence obtained by him shall be of no effect".
(5) In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act (prosecution and punishment of offences) after the entry relating to section 114(3) there shall be inserted the following entry:—
Lordships who take an interest in safety matters will agree that a professional training scheme of this sort is a very valuable asset. In fact, while we were in Government a detailed training scheme had already been worked out by both sides of the industry and I explained it in considerable detail during the Committee stage of the last Bill. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will remember, because he raised points on it and I did my best to satisfy him. I do not want to repeat the details of that scheme as that would merely weary your Lordships; but I would remind you that it allowed for a steady progression of young drivers from the age of 18, when they can start driving the lighter forms of heavy goods vehicles, until they reach the age of 21, when finally they can start training and get a licence to drive the Class I vehicles, the really heavy articulated lorries. But not until he is 21 would a person be qualified to drive a Class I vehicle, as indeed is the present position. But the details of that scheme are in Hansard of December 3 last, at columns 423 and 424.
The scheme had been discussed by us with both sides of the industry and both welcomed it. It certainly remains the view of the Freight Transport Association that to drop this scheme, which has been so painstakingly worked out in complete harmony between representatives of employers and trade unions, would be a disaster. The Road Haulage Association shares that view. When we discussed it at the Second Reading of the original Bill last year the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said this at column 833 on November 15:
"I ought to say here that the Transport and General Workers' Union, having looked at the first clause and the second one relating to bus drivers,…"
that is the second one that we are coming to, No. 13—
… say …"
and here I am quoting what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, quoted,
"…'We accept this clause, in that this facilitates the operation of the agreed driver-apprentice scheme'.".
When the Bill had its Second Reading in another place—and that is the original Bill, again—on January 30 this year the present Minister of Transport, Mr. Fred Mulley, said this at column 472:
"We all welcome the reduction of the age for training drivers for heavy goods vehicles."
So we have here a training scheme that has been agreed and indeed welcomed by both sides of industry. Moreover, we have a training scheme which was welcomed by Labour Party spokesmen in both Houses of Parliament when they were in Opposition.
I cannot therefore see why this clause has been dropped from the present Bill. The same applies to the second new clause, concerning Amendment No. 13, which would enable the Secretary of State to make similar provision for a reduction in the minimum age for driving buses. This again seems to be a matter of great importance, if we are to get sufficiently well-trained bus drivers in the future. I believe it has the support of the employers, and I should be astonished to hear that it is opposed by the union, though I suppose that is possible. But in any case I cannot see why the Government are reluctant to include both clauses. They are both entirely permissive; they give the Secretary of State
806
the power to act if an agreed training scheme comes into being; and that seems to me to be a great advantage and one that should not be lost from the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Perhaps I may have the understanding, if not the sympathy, of the Committee when I say that this is a somewhat difficult area of the Bill, because we are currently having discussions with the Transport and General Workers' Union. I wrote at some length to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and told him as frankly as I could what the position was. I greatly appreciate the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has moved this Amendment. I can fully appreciate his feelings and his anxieties regarding the matters raised in these two Amendments. The Government fully recognise the desire of the operators and the road-freight transport industry for the implementation of the previously agreed scheme, of which the noble Lord has spoken. I want to say equally frankly that they have renewed their representations on the matter, and the Minister for Transport is giving this his urgent attention. Clearly, this is an area where, provided we can get agreement, it will be possible to make easier progress than if we were to make a decision while there is still disagreement.
The noble Lord, quite rightly, said there was agreement when the previous Bill was before the Committee. When the present Bill was drafted the Government felt it best not to include the previous provisions because at the time of its publication—that is to say, of this present Bill—the Transport and General Workers' Union indicated that it had had second thoughts on certain aspects of the scheme. Discussions have been taking place between the Minister and the trade union, and they are still taking place this afternoon. Therefore I do not wish to say anything which might endanger the successful outcome of these discussions and deliberations. If we can secure the maximum good will and if the doubts of the union can be resolved, then I am sure the long-term effect on the industry will be beneficial. I assure the Committee, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the Government recognise the importance which the operators attach to this clause.

807
With regard to the following Amendment, the Government recognise the importance which the operators attach to this, and if we can reach agreement then we shall be pleased to include the Amendments dealing with these matters during the later stages of the Bill. I regret that I cannot be more specific this afternoon. This morning I made urgent inquiries to see whether the matter could be further explained to the Committee; but discussions are still going on and one can only hope that they will be fruitful in the sense that all the doubts which have been expressed will be satisfactorily resolved. I should like to think that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment because I believe that in the interests of the industry itself, if we can get complete agreement—and it existed before, as the noble Lord has indicated—it will be to everybody's advantage.
LORD CHAMPION: Unlike the Transport and General Workers' Union, I have had not had second thoughts about this matter. It seems to me that what we did when in Opposition was absolutely sound, and I hope this will eventually be adopted as part of the Bill itself. I would ask my noble friend to consider whether there is a possibility that the negotiation may be concluded in order that we can consider this matter further at the Report stage. I must admit I should not like to see the Bill pass from this Chamber without a reference to this important matter being included, generally on the lines of the new clauses as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to support my noble friend on these Amendments and to express agreement with everything he has already said. He did in fact leave out one important consideration concerning the career opportunity that an approved driver-training apprenticeship, as it might be called, would bring to an increasing number of young people. I have already received letters from many youngsters (some as young as 14), asking how they can get into lorry-driving as a career. Without such a scheme, of course, the career would be blocked. This means that by the time they are 21 years of age their interest has either waned or they will have taken up other employment. I found Lord Garnsworthy's response to
808
my noble friend rather unhelpful—in fact, he added nothing to what was said on Second Reading, and that in itself was not satisfactory.
It is my understanding that the Transport and General Workers' Union, which also has in support the Scottish Motormen's Union, has no great objection to the scheme regarding goods vehicles, but it has one or two outstanding queries in regard to passenger service vehicles. It is my understanding that the United Road Transport Union—and it is only these three unions which look after the interests of commercial vehicle drivers in the country—has no violent objection. It seems to me that if only a few months ago the Government, whose members were then in Opposition, and ourselves had reached agreement and in general terms this House was happy about the arrangements, then this House should lead rather than follow any trade union second thoughts in the matter. It is my understanding that the differences are small. If we delayed now, it could well be 12 or 18 months before this matter was discussed again, for Road Traffic Bills come before us fairly regularly. Here is an ideal opportunity for this House to give some kind of leadership to the industry and unions concerned, and also to the very large number of younger people who want to enter the industry. The purpose of Parliament is to give leadership in these instances where there is no very violent disagreement, and it is my hope that my noble friend will not withdraw his Amendment.
LORD TEVIOT: My name is on the Amendment, and I beg the Committee's pardon for not being present when it was moved and when the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, made his reply. I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth regarding young people. One can understand the union's point of view—which I mentioned when the Bill was discussed during the time of the previous Administration—and the union does look after its members. One realises the record of young people and their rather "dare-devil" behaviour on the road, but this industry suffers from a lack of staff. My noble friend Lord Lucas—and he and I made our maiden speeches on the 1968 Transport Act on the very same day—has just referred to young people. Perhaps the unions could

809
provide a scheme under which they were able to offer some facilities for people under 21, which might be helpful. But I do not think that young people should be restricted from the training scheme before they are 21. The age of 21 is now getting rather remote. People now vote at 18 and surely that age should apply here.
LORD SLATER: We cannot ignore the observations and sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Champion regarding what was said when this Bill was going through the House on a previous occasion. Nor can we ignore the emphasis placed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on training. At one time, one never had training for young people in the mining industry, but it has now become an outstanding feature for young people. Before a youngster is allowed to go down below and experience the rigid forms of hardship down a mine, he must receive a certain period of apprenticeship training on the surface under proper tuition, and I am all in favour of this type of training.
I am concerned about the public service vehicle licence, and perhaps the noble Lord will clarify the matter. Within the past week, there has been a statement made about women drivers being employed by London Transport, because of the lack of men. Anyone who has been connected with this matter knows that to take over control of some heavy vehicles is very difficult. A heavy vehicle is not like a motor car, which can be turned easily and simply. I have watched many drivers using every ounce of energy and strength in order to take a vehicle round a corner. Perhaps the noble Lord can clarify the position as to the age limit for these young trainees who want to qualify for a P.S.V. licence.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I do not know the intentions of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, but I sincerely hope he will take this Amendment to a Division. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is not being fair to all sides. The present Government agreed a scheme which was in the Bill earlier, and then the noble Lord told us. "Because the union have had second thoughts, please defer the matter to-day. We hope it will be made all right by further negotiation." I am paraphrasing what the noble Lord said. That seems
810
to me an unfair position in which to put Members of the Committee. Surely we as a Parliament are legislating without having to listen to what I would term, without offence, his master's voice. We are legislating as to whether something is right or wrong, and surely it is better to pass this Amendment to-day and then rely upon subsequent negotiations coming to a successful conclusion. In that way we shall be doing our duty as Members of this Committee, rather than listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said and hesitating to-day.
3.19 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: It would be foolish on my part if I showed myself insensitive to the feelings of the Committee. I was as frank as I could be, and I think most Members of the Committee will appreciate that I am circumscribed by events over which I personally have no control. I suggested to the Committee that the Minister is continuing to give this matter his urgent consideration, and if those considerations can be brought to a successful conclusion he will be pleased to include this clause in the Bill. In view of the opinion that has already been expressed—and I have taken note of what my noble friends Lord Champion and Lord Slater, and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Teviot, have said—I want to make it clear that I have no intention of seeking to oppose what is clearly the desire of the Committee on this matter. I hope that that might help us make a little progress, and indicate that we recognise that the Committee feels strongly on this point. But if it wishes to include this clause and the following Amendment in the Bill, so be it.
LORD ABERDARE: May I say thank you very much to the noble Lord. This is a most welcome gesture at the beginning of this Committee stage to-day and I am very grateful.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, so far as the public service vehicle general training scheme is concerned, this has not yet been fully worked out; therefore, I am sure that the considerations he has brought forward will be borne in mind. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for saying he will accept the Amendments. I wish him well

811
in the future negotiations with the Transport and General Workers Union.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the Question is put, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that his comments to my noble friend were quite unfair, using his own phrase, and completely unjustified.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHYRE: Which comments please?
LORD SHEPHERD: When the noble Lord referred to the fact that my noble friend was being unfair to the Committee in the approach and explanation he was giving here. I can put on Record that a large number of noble Lords have expressed appreciation of what my noble friend has done, not in your Lordships' House but outside, in Committee rooms of the House and his own office, seeking ways and means of establishing how a point could be met. I intervene only because I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was being fair to my noble friend, who has sought to meet the wishes of your Lordships' House on many occasions.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am not going to accept a rebuke from the Leader of the House. I had no wish at all to be unfair to the Minister. All I said was that it was very peculiar, not on the Minister's part but on the Government's part, to alter their minds at the behest of what I termed their master's voice. I do not withdraw that at all. It is the trade union leaders' voice which is dictating policy here, as it has in so many other directions. I do not blame the Minister at all; he is but a Member of the Executive. But I still maintain that it is unfair to expect your Lordships not to legislate according to our will and conviction but to have to defer to a third party.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think the noble Lord would be the last one to wish to delay the Committee, but I do not think my noble friend has at any time suggested that the will of your Lordships should not be taken into consideration.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord said it should be deferred.
LORD SHEPHERD: There have been many occasions on which Ministers have asked for decisions to be deferred while other consultations took place. The noble Lord is a very fair man and I think that if he will look at his words tomorrow he will see that he was being unfair to my noble friend. We might discuss this matter outside and reach an amicable arrangement. I hope the noble Lord will now move his Amendment so that we may move to the next part of our Business.
LORD CHAMPION: Do I understand my noble friend is proceeding to a Division on this Amendment?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No; he has accepted it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 13. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is willing to accept this Amendment also.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Licences for persons under 21
".—(1) In subsection (3) of section 144 of the 1960 Act (minimum age for obtaining licences to drive and act as conductor of a public service vehicle) after the words "twenty-one" there shall be inserted the words "or is over the age of eighteen and fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed with respect to his training and employment (including membership of a training scheme approved by the Secretary of State)".
(2) At the end of subsection (4) of that section (licences to drive public service vehicles may be limited to particular types of vehicles) there shall be added the words "and a licence granted to a person under the age of twenty-one shall be issued subject to such conditions as may he prescribed; and if any person under the age of twenty-one drives a public service vehicle in contravention of any such conditions he shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section as driving the vehicle without being licensed for the purpose".
(3) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be added the following subsection:—
"(5A) If there comes into existence, in relation to the holder of a licence to drive a public service vehicle who is under the age of twenty-one, such circumstances as may he prescribed relating to his conduct as the driver of a motor vehicle, the authoirity by whom the licence was granted shall revoke the licence."
(4) In section 4 of the 1972 Act (minimum age for driving motor vehicles) after subsection

813
(1) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prohibit a person who is over the age of 18—

(a) from driving a heavy motor car which is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1960 if he is the holder of a licence under section 144 of that Act to drive such a vehicle; or

(b) from driving, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, a heavy motor car which is constructed solely for the carriage of passengers and their effects but which (because at the time in question it is not being used for carrying passengers for hire or reward) is not a public service vehicle for the purposes of that Act.""— (Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Certain small vehicles not to be public service vehicles
".—(1) After subsection (2) of section 118 of the 1960 Act there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(2A) Without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2) above a vehicle adapted to carry not more than 12 passengers, although used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, shall be treated as not being a public service vehicle if—

(a) it is not customarily operated in the course of a business which consists of or includes the carriage of passengers for hire or reward; and

(b) the only passengers carried in the course of a journey are those who made arrangements to he carried on the vehicle before it began that journey; and

(c) except in the case of a journey the arrangements for which have been made with, or with the approval of, the council of a county or district, the journey is made without previous advertisement to the public of facilities for its being made by passengers to be carried at separate fares ".

(2) Part 11 of Schedule 12 to the 1960 Act (conditions in which certain vehicles carrying not more than four passengers at separate fares are not to he treated as public service vehicles) shall be amended as follows:—

"(a) for the word 'four', in each place where is occurs, there shall be substituted '5'

(b) at the beginning of paragraph 4 (no previous advertisement of the journey) there shall be inserted the words 'Except in the case of a journey the arrangments for which have been made with, or with the approval of, the council of a county or district;' and

(c) paragraph 5 (the journey must not be one on which passengers arc regularly carried) shall be omitted "."

The noble Lord said: If the noble Lord is prepared to go on accepting these Amendments, I can make my speech very brief.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I hope the noble Lord will include Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 with Amendment No. 14.
LORD ABERDARE: I most certainly will. May I say a few words in general about the three Amendments, Nos. 14, 15 and 16, before I come to the details of Amendment No. 14. The object of these three Amendments is to introduce greater flexibility into the system of licensing vehicles to carry fare-paying passengers in rural areas. We did a great deal when we were last in Office to try to alleviate the decline in road passenger transport in rural areas. We provided financial support for uneconomic rural bus services; we gave grants for new buses and a rebate on fuel duty to bus operators; we made a grant to the National Bus Company to prevent fare increases; we relaxed the limits on passenger vehicle drivers' hours in order to improve the flexibility of bus services; and we encouraged experiments to facilitate the use of forms of transport other than the bus.
In the Bill that we brought forward we included four clauses which were designed to achieve this greater flexibility. It may be that on second thoughts, looking back now, we went too far in our proposals, and certainly when we brought them forward at the last Committee stage we were criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and also by my noble friend Lord Teviot. We took those criticisms very much to heart and we continued to discuss the whole matter with the industry. It would have been our intention had we still been in Government to introduce modified proposals which would have achieved much of the flexibility that we were looking for, but with less danger of damage to the interests of the bus operators—a factor that had been laid at our door in the course of the last Committee stage. The present Amendments represent these modified proposals.
I have reason to believe that they are perfectly acceptable to the bus operators. I would sincerely hope that they are acceptable also to the unions. I should certainly expect them to be acceptable to to the present Minister of Transport, the present Government, as they follow very closely Amendments which were put

815
down to our previous Bill by official Labour Party spokesmen in another place. They have, happily, met the criticisms of my noble friend Lord Teviot who, I am very glad to see, has been able to add his name in support of these Amendments. I am very grateful to him. I imagine that they are acceptable to the present Minister of Transport, Mr. Fred Mulley, because on the Second Reading of our Bill in another place on January 30 last he said:
"We would have liked to see something more dramatic to meet the problems of public transport, especially in rural areas."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, col. 472, 30/1/74.]
Above all, I am sure that these clauses will be welcome to all of your Lordships who are concerned about transport in rural areas, for they will help those people who provide informal lifts in their private cars, charitable organisations, like the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Red Cross, who provide informal lifts and help to those who need help in transport in the rural areas and, indeed, to all of those whose efforts need to be harnessed in order to alleviate the problem, but at the same time without damage to the interests of the existing bus services.
The Government have not been too clever in their handling so far of their dealings with the rural areas. Their rate support grant proposals were more favourable to the town dweller than to the countryman. Their prices policy favours the interests of the consumer at the expense of the farmer. Here is an opportunity for them to show that they really care about the rural areas by agreeing to assist the rural bus services and to make the system more flexible. We feel deeply committed to these clauses and we look for a sympathetic response from the Government.
If I may explain the meaning of the first new clause, Clause 14, this would allow owners of mini-buses—that is defined in the clause as vehicles adapted to carry not more than 12 passengers—in other words, vehicles seating 13 people altogether with the driver—to help with lifts and to receive a contribution towards their expenses without the necessity for a public service vehicle licence, subject to three conditions, which are listed as paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Condition (a) is that the vehicle is not usually
816
operated in the course of a business connected with passenger transport. Condition (b) is that the vehicle is not plying for hire—and this a new way of defining "plying for hire" which we think is more effective than just those words, which have always been slightly disputable. Condition (c) is that the journey shall not be advertised in advance, but with the one exception in this case that it can be advertised if authorised by the council of a county or a district. This is an important provision because counties and districts now have a duty under the 1972 Local Government Act to co-ordinate public transport, and therefore it is helpful if they are able to authorise some advertisement of these informal lift services provided by private cars and mini-buses. So this Amendment in subsection (1) will allow charitable organisations to do much valuable work with their social services using cars and sometimes mini-buses.
Subsection (2) concerns cars. This updates Part II of Schedule 12 to the 1960 Act in three respects. In paragraph (a) it changes the word "four" to "five" so as to define "car" as a vehicle with up to five passenger seats. The present definition is up to four passenger seats, but, as your Lordships are well aware, many modern cars have six seats in all—that is the driver's seat plus five—and so this amounts to an Amendment which widens the definition of "car" to bring it up to date. Paragraph (b) I have already spoken about. This is the provision about advertisements with the same exception in the case of a county or district council. Paragraph (c) omits the words:
"the journey must not be one on which passengers are regularly carried",
so as to facilitate cases where a person is regularly carried to work in some car or mini-bus of this kind. It will also, incidentally, remove a provision which was almost impossible to enforce.
That is the clause I am proposing that your Lordships should insert in this Bill. It would bring much needed flexibility to the public service vehicle arrangements in the case of private cars and mini-buses. We have deliberately modified our proposals since the proposals in our last Bill, to meet the objections of noble Lords and Members of another place in the Party opposite, and to meet the

817
objections of bus operators. We believe that it will now provide a useful relaxation of the present rules and will be of considerable benefit to rural areas, without damaging the interests of the bus operators. I beg to move.
3.34 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the explanation he has given for moving these Amendments. As he said, they seek to restore in modified form a large part of the provisions on bus licensing contained in the previous Administration's own Road Traffic Bill. During the debate on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich referred to the fact that the proposals of the former Bill had been cirticised by both sides of industy, and he explained the Government had accordingly decided to meet them both for discussions on rural transport problems before deciding on the merits of the previous proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has told us that he has reason to believe that the present proposals are acceptable to the road operators. I am not able to report that discussions have been concluded with all those parties involved, but I sense that the Committee is behind Lord Aberdare and I shall not therefore oppose the Amendment; because I have quite clearly indicated that I am not insensitive, nor are the Government themselves insensitive, to any strong feeling that may be expressed. The Government themselves are always ready to consider proposals.
I was a little sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, ventured into the realms of the rate support grant. I do not propose to take him up on that, beyond saying that there is a great deal to be said about the matter, and the difficulties that many ratepayers are finding are due, not merely to one small, comparatively minor measure that has been undertaken since this Government have been in office, but in much larger measure to the way in which local government itself has been reorganised and the framing of the rate support grant generally. I hope that with those few words Lord Aberdare will feel he has succeeded in his objective.
LORD TEVIOT: I can only say I was delighted to hear the words of the noble
818
Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, accepting these Amendments. In the last Bill I was supporting the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Aberdare much more so. They are extremely moderate Amendments and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, commends them to the Committee.
LORD ABERDARE: This is a very remarkable Committee stage and I hope it continues like this for the rest of the day. I am sincerely grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. He has judged the mood of the Committee without anybody actually having spoken on the Amendments, but he was probably right in judging the Committee's views. Again, I can only wish him the best of good fortune in the course of the discussions he is having, and hope that these will bear fruit and that help for the rural services will emerge as we trust it will.
LORD SHINWELL: Has my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy not observed the difference on this occasion as compared with what happened during the Committee stage debates on the Industrial Relations Bill and other Bills when we were in Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his colleagues were in Government? Then they refused to accept a single Amendment. They were as inflexible as it was possible to be. The rigidity was so obvious. They were so obstinate, even perverse. Note the difference! Here is my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy, so resilient, so ready to yield. What a transformation, all to the good! Sometimes it is better to have a consensus of opinion than a confrontation, I agree. Nevertheless, I am taking note. It may be that some day we shall be in Opposition again—who can tell?—and we shall expect better treatment than we received on previous occasions.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Would the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, also take note that when we were in Government, and he was in Opposition, we took note of the wishes of this House in relation to parking of motor-cars on footpaths?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I hope that we shall not go too wide in our discussions. We have managed to have introduced rate support grant and one or

819
two other things. My noble friend Lord Shinwell has now brought in industrial relations, in the interests of everybody concerned. I think that we ought now to make a little progress on the Bill before the Committee.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I wonder whether the Minister would answer a question which really is connected with the Bill; namely, does the Bill apply to Scotland? If so, transport is a regional matter, and regions are not mentioned in the Bill. We shall not have counties in Scotland.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Since I have been in this House I have studiously kept out of Scottish affairs. I hope that I am doing so this afternoon.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: This is not an argument, it is merely that we shall need to have a Scottish Bill if this point is not put right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: I have not explained Amendment No. 15 but if, as I understand, the noble Lord is going to accept it I do not think that I need explain it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the following new Clause.
Modifications of provisions relating to permits for certain bus services
.—(1) Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968 (permits for certain bus services in lieu of road service licences) shall have effect subject to the modifications specified in the following provisions of this section. and references in those provisions to section 30 shall be construed accordingly.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) of section 30 (permits for use as stage carriages of vehicles adapted to carry not more than 12 passengers) after the words "stage carriage" there shall be inserted the words "or express carriage".
(3) In subsection W(b) of section 30 (permits for use as stage carriages or express carriages of certain vehicles used to provide transport for school children) the words "(not being a vehicle belonging to a local education authority or, in Scotland, an education authority)" shall be omitted.
(4) In subsection (2) of section 30 (matters with respect to which the traffic commissioners are to be satisfied before granting a permit) for the words "there are no other transport facilities available to meet the reasonable needs of the proposed route" there shall be substitute4 the words "it will be in the interests
820
of the public to do so, having regard to any other transport facilities which there may be"." (Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Modifications of criteria for grant of and attachment of conditions to road service licences
".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, subsection (2) of section 135 of the 1960 Act (matters to be taken into consideration by traffic commissioners in granting or refusing road service licences or attaching conditions to such licences) shall be amended as follows:

(a) after the words "shall have regard" there shall he inserted the words "to the interests of the public and subject thereto, shall have regard also"; and

(b) for paragraphs (c) and (d) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs:

"(c) the needs of the area as a whole in relation to traffic;

(d) any statement of policy or any plans relating to the needs of the area in connection with transport matters which are submitted in evidence to the commissioners and which have been prepared by a body charged by or under any enactment with the responsibility for formulating policies to meet those needs.".

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall apply—

(a) in relation to an application to any traffic commissioners for a road service licence or for the exercise by them of their power to vary the conditions attached to such a licence, if the application is made before the coming into operation of that subsection; or

(b) in relation to a proposal by any traffic commissioners to vary the conditions attached to a road service licence (otherwise than in pursuance of an application falling within paragraph (a) above), if the notice of the proposal to exercise their power is given before the coming into operation of that subsection; or

(c) in relation to any appeal arising out of any application or proposal in relation to which, by virtue of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above, subsection (1) above does not apply.

(3) In any case where—

(a) a person making an application to the traffic commissioners for the grant of a road service licence submits to them a certificate issued to the applicant by the Secretary of State and stating that in the opinion of the Secretary of State the grant of a licence is necessary to enable a road service in respect of a route specified in the certificate to be provided as an alternative to a railway passenger service which has been or is to

821
be discontinued or in consequence of the discontinuance of such a service, and

(b) it appears to the commissioners that the application is for a road service licence in respect of the route specified in the certificate,

the commissioners shall grant the applicant a road service licence in respect of that route, and section 153(2) of the 1960 Act (traffic commissioners to hold public sittings for purpose of hearing and determining applications for the grant of a licence) shall not apply in relation to the application.
(4) In any case where—

(a) a person making an application to the traffic commissioners under section 135(5) of the 1960 Act for the variation of the conditions attached to a road service licence submits to them a certificate from the Secretary of State stating that in the opinion of the Secretary of State the variations specified in the certificate of the conditions attached to the licence are necessary to enable the holder of the licence to vary the service provided by him under the licence either so as to provide an alternative to a railway passenger service which has been or is to be discontinued or in consequence of the discontinuance of such a service, and

(b) the application requests the making of the variations specified in the certificate and no other variations,

the traffic commissioners shall make the variations to which the application relates.

(5) If a certificate from the Secretary of State submitted to any traffic commissioners by a person making an application falling within subsection (3) or subsection (4) above states that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, certain conditions specified in the certificate and relating to the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 135(4) of the 1960 Act (fares etc.) should be attached to the road service licence for which the application is made or, as the case may be, to the conditions of which the application relates, the traffic commissioners shall secure that those conditions are so attached, but without prejudice to their power to attach any other conditions which do not conflict with those specified in the certificate.
(6) Section 143 of the 1960 Act (appeals in connection with road service licences etc.) shall not apply in respect of the grant of a licence by virtue of subsection (3) above or the variation of any conditions by virtue of subsection (4) above."—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
3.42 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 15 insert the following new clause
"(1) In section 98 of the Transport Act 1968 (written records with respect to drivers'
822
hours) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)(e) of this section, regulations under this section may make provision for exemptions from all or any of the requirements of the regulations in relation to a vehicle in which there is installed equipment for recording information as to the use of the vehicle, being equipment—

(a) compiling with the relevant type approval requirements, within the meaning of section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1972; and

(b) in respect of which there are fulfilled any prescribed conditions (including conditions as to the payment of fees) with respect to the installation, maintenance, use, inspection, testing and certification of the equipment, the keeping and preservation of records in connection with the equipment and the preservation of records produced by means of the equipment".

(2) At the end of the said section 98 there shall be added the following subsection:—
"(6) In any case where, by virtue of any provision made under subsection (2A) above, a person claims to be exempt in respect of any vehicle from any requirement of regulations under this section, a record produced by means of recording equipment installed in the vehicle and falling within paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection shall, in any proceedings under this Part of this Act, be evidence of the matters appearing from the record.".
(3) In section 99 of the Transport Act 1968 (inspection of records and other documents) at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there shall he added the words "or, if he is exempt from any requirement of regulations under section 98 of this Act by virtue of any provision made under subsection (2A) of that section, any record which he is required to preserve as a condition of that exemption".
(4) In subsection (5) of the said section 99, after the words "section 97 of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or any record which he is required to preserve as a condition of such an exemption as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of this section".
(5) At the end of the said section 99 there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(11) In the case of a vehicle in respect of which any person is exempt, by virtue of subsection (2A) of section 98 of this Act, from any requirement of regulations under that section, the references in subsections (2)(a) and (10) of this section to equipment installed in a vehicle for the purposes of section 97 of this Act shall be construed as references to the equipmnt which, by virtue of its installation in the vehicle, gives rise to the exemption."."
The noble Lord said: I apologise, but I was not here at the beginning this afternoon and I am not clear whether the benevolence of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, included this clause too.

823
Can I sit down and assume acceptance, or would he like me to move it formally and explain it?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think that it would be to the advantage of the Corn-mince if the noble Lord explained this Amendment. It covers rather different ground. It is impossible for me to read the mind of the Committee without at least seeing their facial reaction to what is being said.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am gratified by his facial reaction so far. This Amendment is again inserting what we had in our previous Bill, which is basically the tachograph. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a long and detailed account. The details, as in this Amendment No. 17, are somewhat misleading. They appear to be relieving drivers of heavy vehicles of having to record certain things that they otherwise would have to do. This is indeed a state of affairs that they will be relieved of. However, the tachograph which, if installed, would enable people to be excused from having to record these extra details, will be with us assuming that we stay in the Common Market. On every vote we have had in this House we have had a heavy majority that the ideals of the Common Market are acceptable.
By 1980 all vehicles in the Common Market will have to have definite and strict tachograph requirements. If this Amendment is accepted a lesser form of tachograph will be allowed, which will relieve drivers. There is a myth, a fairy tale going about that the unions are against this measure. When I was in the Department of the Environment I had many talks with no doubt the same civil servants as the noble Lord who is answering. From my understanding of these conversations, the unions were not half as opposed to this measure as they are generally represented to be by people who do not know about the tachograph.
The ignorant person says that no one likes the unknown "Big Brother" in the dark watching you, and that will be a horrible spy in the dark looking at an innocent driver. I do not think that this is anything of the kind. I do not believe that the unions take this line either. From what I knew of the con
824
versations, they recognised that the tachograph was a modern invention which gave a recorded account of the events of the driving of a vehicle. It will record whether you accelerate fast, brake heavily frequently, and all kinds of things about your driving. This is not necessarily so bad. If you are the father of a family, you know perfectly well if your family car is taken out over four weekends by yourself, your wife, son, or daughter, for the same journey, you may get totally different recordings of consumption of petrol. You may also, if you were a good engineer and able to examine your car, find that the wear and tear on that car had also been altered considerably by the different driving of those four people. The tachograph can help a firm to understand which drivers are driving sensibly and well, and which are not.
This is not a matter of penal sanctions, but rather a matter of help. The driver who is not driving well can be helped and advised. He can be asked to go out with the driver who has a good tachograph. so that he can see where his errors have lain. Nothing is better than example. Since the debate on December 4, on which I spoke last at length on this subject, there has been a case in the courts where a driver accused of speeding has been acquitted because he was able to produce his tachograph. The tachograph can show the speeds at which drivers were going. The tachograph is an innocent bystander that pays honest witness to the truth. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
The various Bills that we have passed for safety on the roads, for the protection of the health of drivers of lorries or buses, or anyone employed in public transport, have been passed with the intention of protecting the public. If you are to argue that the intentions of the Government, and past Governments and future Governments, ought to be by-passed through not knowing what is happening, you may say that the tachograph is a bad instrument. The tachograph will tell the truth on this, so to that extent you have to stand up and be counted as not minding the truth being known. But I do not believe that the average driver of buses or heavy commercial vehicles, and all the various associations that move vehicles, would mind this being known. The good driver, the genuine driver, will

825
not mind. Obviously, one will mind if one is half-an-hour early or half-an-hour late, but we have to bring our common sense to bear here.
Let me emphasise once again that if we stay in the E.E.C. the requirement will be there. This will enable our operators for the time being to put in the form of tachograph that we have working in this country, and they will be excused from putting in the more expensive, more information-giving, long-term tachograph which will come later. This will give our operators time to get practice and experience of the tachograph. It is really a matter of simple common sense, in trying to balance the desires of the Transport Ministry, and of all people who are interested in good driving and in the safety and health of our operators, to see that this is done with the least possible trouble and the least possible human inspection. Nobody likes to be asked questions every minute of the day. In this day and age, a card on your vehicle which cannot lie is not something which we ought lightly to discard. I beg to move.
LORD SLATER: In moving his Amendment the noble Lord seemed to base his argument on what is happening in the E.E.C. Why, in heaven's name, does the Opposition, who we know are strong supporters of the E.E.C., always have to remind us of what is happening in the E.E.C.? Surely we are able to think for ourselves in this country and operate our motor vehicles in the way we want. People who are driving these heavy lorries do not want someone on their tails all the time, but that is what will happen with these new attachments and a person's driving can be reported back to his employers. If the noble Lord made that speech in the company of lorry or heavy vehicle drivers in this country, he would immediately be howled down. They would believe that he was seeking to reflect upon their efficiency and their ability to have charge of a moving vehicle.
I sincerely hope that my noble friend will give serious consideration to this Amendment and will not give way easily on this issue. If he does, the next suggestion we shall have from the Benches opposite will be that we drive on the wrong side of the road, while those on the Continent drive on the right side, and we should therefore drive on their side.
826
The Minister has been very forthcoming, and I hope he stands firm against this Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: In reply to my noble friend, let me say right away that, so far as I understand the position of the Government, we intend generally to keep left. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, invited us to a flight of fancy about what happens to the family car if it is used at weekends by different members of a family. I am not sure whether the son would enjoy having a tachograph; he would probably much more enjoy having somebody else with him than having to worry about a tachograph. As explained during Second Reading, the Government quite deliberately did not seek the powers that this Amendment would provide in the Bill. We do not consider it right to encourage industry to speculate on tachographs, while the general uncertainty of the E.E.C. situation prevails. The scheme of the previous Administration to encourage voluntary fitment was conceived, as I understand it and as I think your Lordships will recall, in the light of our E.E.C. obligations to fit tachographs compulsorily to certain goods and passenger vehicles from January 1, 1976. It is the Government's view that when membership of the E.E.C. is resolved that will be the time to consider what action should be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, reminded the House that when we discussed the E.E.C. a heavy majority had shown itself in favour of joining. I think it ought to be said—and I have tried to resist being provoked—that the country has not spoken on that issue and, may I say with the utmost respect, the view of the country is more important than what we here think, because it is the future of the British people that is involved. I am sorry that that point was brought in, and I felt I ought to make some reply. My noble friend Lord Slater has quite clearly been in touch with drivers and operators, and I think he has represented here this afternoon their feelings on the installation and use of tachographs. I myself have been advised in terms very similar to those he has used. I am aware that some operators have already installed tachographs as a result of encouragement by the previous Administration, but this

827
Administration cannot take responsibility for that. This Government can see no good reason for the inclusion of tachographs in this Bill.
If the Committee feels that it wants to insist on this Amendment, I am not insensitive to what noble Lords wish to say and neither is the Government, but I think it would be premature. I am sorry to have to speak in this way, because I know what an enthusiast the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is on this matter. I happen to occupy the room which he previously used and every time I look at his picture—and I still have that one of Ibiza—my mind says, "Tachograph". So he can be assured that I appreciate fully his strength of feeling on this matter. I hope that I have made the view of the Government absolutely clear.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Despite the friendly references from the noble Lord who is handling this Bill for the Government, I am not sure that that explanation will satisfy the Committee. It is now four o'clock and I understood that at some point we would have the benefit of a Statement on coal. If that Statement has been cleared, perhaps this would be a convenient time to take it.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord well knows that we do not seek to take our Statements prematurely to those in another place. We have not yet received the signal that the Coal Statement has been taken, or is in the course of being taken, in the Commons. I am keeping a very careful watch on the place from which I expect the message to come, and as soon as the message is received I will certainly intervene so that the Statement can be made.
BARONESS0 WOOTTON OF ABINGER: It seems to me it is a pity that the E.E.C. has been dragged into this discussion. I should have thought that in this context it was a red herring, and not very red at that. I wish my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy would give some more arguments on merits about the content of this Amendment and not treat it in the context of the E.E.C. So far I do not think we have had many arguments on merit, the only argument being that it is not popular with certain professional
828
drivers. If my noble friend can give some more convincing arguments I shall be happy to go along with him, but at the moment I feel that not enough positive has been said on his side.
LORD TEVIOT: Coupled with what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has just said, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, a question. I think that it was his Government which originally introduced the tachograph clause into the 1968 Transport Bill. My name is on this Amendment, together with the names of my noble friends Lord Aberdare and Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and although I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, will disagree with me, it is my view that this has to come to a head with the E.E.C., because we are in the Common Market. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Slater, has said. When I originally spoke on the Bill I was fresh from being a bus driver, I was very acid at the whole tone of the Bill, the very fact that "Big Brother" was to watch you, the very fact that you were to have something in your cab that was to report back on you in just the same way as we have a clock in this Chamber and two more on either side, and probably in about ten years' time we shall have many more clocks and many more rather nasty things as well. I think everything is perfectly horrible, but it is because of the times in which we are moving.
I should like this Amendment to be accepted. My noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton made many points with which I thoroughly disagree, but I hope we shall stay in the Common Market for a long time and that we shall get away from this nasty habit of everybody watching to see that everything is correctly done, which is like having nurses in starched blue uniforms. Therefore, I should like an answer to my original question to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, as to why his previous Administration wanted to introduce the tachograph, and perhaps he can also answer the question raised by his noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry to tell my noble friends that I am not in favour of these Amendments

829
at this particular moment. The operators with whom I have dealings who have fitted the tachograph are contesting its reliability. In the event of an offence taking place where the evidence of the tachograph has to be taken this may well be contested. The cost of re-calibration of the only type of tachograph currently on the United Kingdom market is very high indeed. Neither does the fitting of such an instrument preclude the driver from completing a number of documents that are necessary for internal domestic journeys as well as for domestic and external journeys. It seems to me that until such time as there is an alteration in the regulations regarding documentation of vehicles leaving some part of the United Kingdom, travelling part of their journey as a domestic, in-England journey, and the other part of their journey on the Continent where a different set of documentation is required, the purpose of the tachograph will be completely lost. Until such time as documentation, either mechanical or manual is agreed, it would seem wrong to insist upon the use of such instruments.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in order that the House may hear the Statement on the Coal Industry I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and House resumed accordingly.

THE COAL INDUSTRY
4.7 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (LORD BALOGH): My Lords, with the permission of the House I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House is aware, the Queen's Speech announced an urgent examination of the future of the coal industry. The aim of this tripartite examination, conducted under my chairmanship jointly with the N.C.B. and the three unions in the national consultative machinery, has been to give the industry a new status, perspective and security. We are aiming to complete our work by the late summer or early
830
autumn but, in accordance with the need stated in our Manifesto for a report within three months, we have produced an Interim Report setting out the facts of the situation and the conclusions we have reached so far. It is being published this afternoon and I have arranged for copies to be available in the Library and the Vote Office.
"It is now quite clear that there is a secure, and indeed prosperous future for coal, provided it can retain its new-found competitive position. Potential demand could reach 150 million tons in the mid-1980s. The increases in the price of oil that have taken place over the last year or so have transformed the energy scene. The Government are determined that coal should not be at the mercy of short-term fluctuations caused by variations in price and supply of competing fuels. However, we recognise and accept—as I am sure does everybody in the industry—that the future prospects of the industry should be determined by its long-term competitiveness.
"Demand of 150 million tons is well above current output. All sides of the industry accept that a substantial increase in output is attainable with the present capacity. I am sure that the House will welcome the joint production drive which has been launched and will also share the hope that the N.C.B. and the unions will quickly be able to adopt a sound and effective productivity scheme.
"The examination has recommended, and the Government have accepted, the adoption of the N.C.B.'s Plan for Coal. This proposes new capital investment of some £600 million over the period to 1985 in order to provide 42 million tons of new capacity to replace that lost by depletion.
"The N.C.B. should now press ahead with preparations for the development of the Selby coal field as quickly as possible. This will, of course, be subject to the normal planning procedures. Selby will be invaluable in providing power station coal and the decision to develop it will enable the C.E.G.B. to give the Drax II coal fired power station a firm place in their investment programme for the current

831
year. Opencast production will be expanded from 10 million tons to 15 million tons a year.
"With proper commercial pricing the N.C.B. should in future be able to cover the real costs of producing coal and we are working out with the Board the precise nature of its financial objective.
"During our examination we have been constantly aware of the human costs of coal, and the legacy of chronic ill health. Outstanding among these is the problem of pneumoconiosis. All Members of the House will recognise the shadow that this has cast over the industry. We have accepted that it would be tragic for the Coal Board and the unions to fight out in the courts claims for compensation in respect of 39,000 sufferers from this disease. The Government support the view that a scheme by which all these claims might be settled without recourse to proceedings is a more sensible and more humane method of dealing with this problem. The Government will therefore be bringing before Parliament proposals to contribute to relieving the burden of the Board's finances in respect of such a scheme for existing sufferers, though it seems only right that the industry itself should make provision for the future. The N.C.B. and the unions are now formulating a scheme to deal with this.
"The examination will be continuing the investigation of a number of more detailed points with a view to presenting a final Report in the autumn. In particular the Research and Development Working Group, under my honourable friend the Member for Midlothian, will be examining the whole question of long-term uses of coal.
"It gives me pleasure and pride to present this report to the House, with the bright future it forecasts for the coal industry, to welcome the positive plans that are being put forward for the industry's development and, perhaps most important of all, to welcome the new spirit of co-operative endeavour demonstrated by the ready participation of all sides in this examination."
4.10 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, for repeating this Statement, and will look forward to reading the full Report in due course. First of all, we must all welcome the steps being taken to compensate for what the Minister, in a very aptly chosen word, if I may say so, has called the"shadow"being cast on the industry by the dreaded disease of pneumoconiosis. But can the Minister tell us what preventive measures the Government envisage being taken to ward off the incidence of the affliction of this disease in the future.
The noble Lord referred to the
"prosperous future for coal, provided it can retain its new-found competitive position".
Of course, we would welcome this, but can the noble Lord tell us the estimated relevant costs for energy from coal, oil and nuclear power? Can he also give us some of the cost assumptions being made in arriving at these figures? I did not quite understand the paragraph where he referred to "proper commercial pricing" and "the precise nature of its financial objective". I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, hut it crossed my mind that these might be abstruse terms in economics, because I am sure I am not alone in finding it difficult to know what he means in the simple English of the ordinary layman, like myself and many other noble Lords.
My Lords, the noble Lord then referred to the secure future for the industry. I hope he is right. In this connection, it is rather worrying to read in the Press recently about a decline in productivity in the industry since the strike was settled. The figures I read were a decline from 47·6 cwt. per man-shift before the strike, to 44·8 cwt. per man-shift since the strike was settled. In Yorkshire in particular, it is suggested that there has been a decline of nearly 1,400 cwt. per man-shift, something like 25 per cent. This bodes ill for the Selby field in Yorkshire, for which we all have so many hopes, even though those hopes will take some years to mature. In the event of productivity figures like these continuing, it will be a tremendous struggle to increase the output of the industry to the order of 42 million tons of new capacity. This is something in the order of a 30 per cent. increase in a time of falling productivity,

833
so I should like reassurance on those points.
Perhaps most important of all is the matter which I hope the last paragraph of the Statement is referring to. What credible undertakings are being sought from the unions by a Government proposing to invest £600 million on top of the £1,100 million announced by the previous Government? The miners have just had a 30 per cent. pay rise, after the end of the strike. Now they are asking for something in excess of 30 per cent. on top of that. We recently read Mr. Timpany as being quoted as saying in a rather non-Parliamentary phrase, "The social contract is hogwash". His friend Mr. McGahey said, "You only get what you fight for, so let's start fighting now". In the face of statements like these, from individuals whose power and irresponsibility has been all too clearly demonstrated in recent months, before we can speak of security it would be prudent to think carefully about investing vast sums of public money if this is going to leave us dependent on a strike prone industry which can threaten the national security.
4.15 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, for repeating the Statement. I welcome particularly the general expression of views in the Statement about the bright future which it forecasts for the coal industry. Of course, I realise that this is only an interim statement, and cannot be held to be comprehensive, but I should have thought that one major matter which even an Interim Report might properly mention is that which relates to any schemes of decentralisation of the administrative affairs of the Coal Board which may be under consideration. I feel sure that the Minister will agree that some degree of decentralisation of the administration of the Coal Board could be of advantage, particularly in regard to the organisation of the coal-mining industry in Wales. I am not asking the Minister for any detailed reply to-day, but if he has any general information about any schemes of reorganisation. particularly with regard to Wales and the Welsh mining industry, I shall be very glad to hear it.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord opposite has contributed to the peaceful evolution of the coal industry by his intemperate remarks—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BALOGH:—about some of the trade union leaders.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, will forgive me for interrupting, is the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, being particularly intemperate by quoting Mr. McGahey, or is it Mr. McGahey who is being intemperate?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I should have thought that on some occasions one ought to be somewhat more reticent.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why?
LORD BALOGH: Because a lack of reticence has led to a very deplorable state in this industry, one which we received from the previous Government. It seems to me that some of the members of that previous Government should think twice before they attack in this sort of lusty manner.
So far as the first question is concerned, which is non-controversial, the Coal Board is obviously doing its best by new methods, especially in mechanised coal mining, to reduce the incidence of pneumoconiosis, but this illness still occurs. Obviously we must equalise the chances for people who have this risk with those who do not, and this can be done in many ways. For instance, in Europe it is done by early retirement, but there are other measures which can be taken.
My Lords, with reference to productivity, we have now an after-effect of the short-time working and strike. Instead of 120 million tons, production is running at about 113 million tons; a decline of 7 million tons, which is not the 25 per cent. quoted by the noble Lord. So far as financial terms are concerned, I do not think I have contributed any mystery words to this Statement. I should have thought commercial terms were used, normally speaking; that one covers the costs with an addition. Obviously, we again received from the previous Government a situation in which vast deficits

835
have been incurred by the nationalised industries. We are under tremendous inflationary pressure, and therefore normalisation of prices and financial returns has to be done with very great care, lest the inflationary spiral be accelerated. It has to be done with a certain amount of discretion.
I shall report to my right honourable friend what was said about Wales, especially about decentralisation of the Welsh coal mining industry. I should not have thought that at the moment that would be a useful measure, because obviously the peripheral coal mines have certain general problems. It would be better to have the flexibility of using the more prosperous mines in order to offset the peripheral mines' performance. I think I have dealt with all the questions.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I, as one who has been associated politically with the mining industry over many years, welcome the Government's proposals, but that I regard the proposals as frightfully optimistic? Is he aware that target figures have been bandied about over many years but have seldom been achieved. The figure of 200 million tons suggested by the previous Chairman of the National Coal Board, Lord Robens, was never achieved the 140 million tons suggested by the Minister of Fuel and Power, and now 120 million tons, has not been achieved; now the Minister has used the figure of 150 million tons. Is my noble friend aware that one of the vital salient features of the problem is the difficulty of recruiting sufficient labour? Since I am on the question of sufficient labour, may I recall to my noble friend a suggestion he made to me when I was Minister of Fuel and Power in 1946, even in the early months if 1947, when there was the greatest difficulty in recruiting labour and there was a vast shortage of coal. He made the suggestion to me that we should recruit Italian labour. Is he still of that opinion?
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I am interested in the Statement of my noble friend in regard to this industry. All noble Lords will be aware that I come from the mining industry, that I spent 30 years of my life down below before
836
I became a Member of Parliament. I was interested in the observations made from the Front Bench opposite in regard to productivity. Work within a mine is not like work within a factory. When one is at the coal face and working, either with machines or by hewing, as it were, from the shoulder, one day production can go up and the next day, because of the nature of the seam from which the raw material is being extracted, that production can fall. So far as the men in the industry are concerned they are being aware of the fall in production simply because they do not like to see it. At one time they used to show the flag in regard to the target. My noble friend will be aware that it was the desire and the aspiration of the men coming out on to the pithead to see that they had reached the target for that week, and they were overjoyed that they had reached that target. The same spirit still emanates from the miner even at this present time. I was very sorry that the noble Lord should refer to the fall in production because of the increase in wages they had received in their application.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I was giving the noble Lord the benefit of the doubt in the light of the rather provocative remarks from the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite. But I now suspect that the noble Lord is making a speech. When we have a Statement of this character we are permitted a few words of introduction with the object of putting a question. I should be grateful if my noble friend would put a question, recognising that I have in no sense intervened because what he is saying is not of very great value, but because I think in the interests of order and the progress of Business I ought to intervene.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for pulling me up because it is true I was drifting into a speech. Is my noble friend in a position to say whether it was the intention of the previous Administration—and, after all, we are taking a Bill to-day that was supposed to have been brought forward by the previous Government—to accede to the request of the National Coal Board to proceed with the development of the Selby project?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shinwell is, of course, right, that this is an optimistic evaluation, but it seems to me that after so much pessimism, which has caused very grave psychological difficulties in the pits, a little optimism is perhaps helpful. I do not think it is over-optimistic. If no investment took place, we should be running down the industry very rapidly, and obviously even if we could get our own oil supplies for our marginal energy needs this would be very costly in terms of foreign exchange and the balance of payments. So I think, on the whole, to aim at the 40 million tons capacity increase is not unreasonable. That capacity increase will, of course, be topped by a 5 million ton contribution by open cast. I should have thought that the 150 million tons is the demand for rather than the supply of coal in this Statement. So far as Italian labour is concerned, of course I am now some 30 years older and therefore 30 years less full of illusions.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is absolutely certain that we shall go ahead with the Selby development? Secondly, is he aware that £600 million spent in the mining industry will give a greater return, with the satisfaction of safety to the environment, than £600 million invested in mythological nuclear reactors which have not yet had a prototype? Finally, on pneumoconiosis, is my noble friend aware that to draw young men into the industry first class treatment for the cure, or limitation, of the disease is necessary.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Slater. I do not think that any Government are aware of the plans of the previous Government, and that is a good thing because one's asininities cannot be quoted against oneself. I do not think, at any rate in this country, we shall give up this useful system. I think at the moment recruitment has improved and there has been a drift back into the coal industry. One can only hope that with the restoration of confidence, and with a guarantee of a certain minimum demand for coal, this improvement will continue. I will not dispute with my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek about the importance of the elimination, or at least limitation, of the
838
illness which afflicts so many people in this industry. I do not think you can hope for wonderful results in a short time. This is an extraordinarily difficult problem. I can only assure noble Lords that the Government are doing their utmost to advance research and remedial measures.
Finally, I would say that the productivity scheme which is envisaged—and this answers my noble friend Lord Slater as well—will do the sort of things which he has experienced in previous periods and will stimulate the productivity and the performance of the industry.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I have two points, my Lords. First of all, could the noble Lord say anything about recruitment, especially amongst juveniles, during the past twelve months? Secondly, on the question of pneumoconiosis, did he read the article in the Sunday Times last Sunday? Is he satisfied with the decisions which many of the pneumoconiosis panels are giving?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, recruitment for the last six years has been at about 20,000 per annum; but the circumstances of the industry were very different at that time, the output having contracted sharply. The hope that we shall be able to recruit 28,000 I think will be justified. However, there is no possibility of giving any really convincing figures, because obviously up to this examination the whole background situation was so entirely different that these figures will not give us any really hopeful or even accurate indication for the future.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, what about my second question, on the medical panels' decisions on pneumoconiosis? In the light of coroners' remarks on deaths for a long time some of us have been very alarmed about some of the decisions of the pneumoconiosis panels.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend. If he puts down a Question on that subject I shall obviously endeavour to give him satisfaction.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wonder whether the House shares my view that I ought now to move the Motion, That this House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, may I—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have put the suggestion to the House. We have been on this matter now for twenty-seven minutes. I am aware that some noble Lords are concerned about the Selby position. I will see that they are communicated with very quickly, perhaps this afternoon, and then if they wish to proceed with the matter they will be able to do so, perhaps tomorrow. I hope my noble friends will accept that from me so that we may again resolve ourselves into Committee upon the Road Traffic Bill.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
4.36 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 17.
[Lord Maybray-King in the Chair.]
LORD WINDLESHAM: We return to the Amendment which was under discussion, Amendment No. 17, to insert a new clause after Clause 15 of the Bill. I should like to make a brief intervention at this stage in view of the discussion we had in Committee before the Statement on coal was made by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. Perhaps the debate on coal could continue outside the Chamber rather than in the course of the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill with which we are now concerned.
I have not been close to this subject. I do not know the pros and cons on the installation of tachographs. Many other noble Lords in this House are probably as ill-informed as I am on this matter. I cannot believe that there is not more to be said for and against the Amendment than we have heard so far in the speech made by the noble Lord. Lord Garnsworthy. We might recall that this clause, which has now been put down as an Amendment, was in the original Bill before the House. There must, therefore, have been some reason for inserting it into the Bill. It has been carefully considered. It has been the subject of a great deal of consultation. The clause was originally included in the Bill; now it has been omitted. Only two arguments have been advanced against the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way. I do not know whether he is aware that I indicated that we were not going to oppose this Amendment if it were clearly the desire of the Committee that it should be included in the Bill. Before the noble Lord goes any further, I ought to say that his noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton indicated that he was quite prepared to move it without even speaking to it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps he felt that the merits spoke for themselves. Let us go into it. We are in Committee. This is what a Committee stage is for, to debate the pros and cons in our Committee proceeding. Any noble Lord can take part. There is no pressure on time. Thanks to the co-operative attitude of the noble Lord opposite, the Bill has been moving along very nicely. Let us hear the pros and cons of this proposal.
Two things have been said. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. referred to them. The noble Lord, Lord Slater, told us that if the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, had made the speech that he had made to your Lordships to-day before a meeting of drivers he would have had a very hostile reception. That was thought to be an argument which would carry weight in a House of Parliament: that a special interest, an organised interest, did not like it. This is a serious and important point. It is not a new one, because on the Second Reading of the original Road Traffic Bill and during the Committee stages of the original Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was honest enough actually to say that the Transport and General Workers' Union was very disturbed about Clause 21. He made this point on Second Reading and he referred to it again in Committee. Then, in reply to this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said that if something of the sort was adopted it might be regarded as going along with what is required by the European Economic Community. This again does not appear to be a very strong argument. Now the noble Lord seems to be somewhat uncertain. If he wishes to say that he accepts the Amendment here and now, I shall sit down with pleasure. But he could have said that perhaps, if there was nothing to argue about, before asking my noble friend Lord

841
Mowbray to make a detailed speech, which he did, and before the noble Lord made the speech that he did in reply. If he would like to accept it here and now, let him say so.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is making rather heavy weather of this. I do not think he is going to be able to make many bricks because he has not got much straw to play with. I indicated quite early that if the Committee were so minded—and I suggested that I needed to be able to assess the reactions of the Committee to what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, had to say in proposing this Amendment—we should not oppose this Amendment. I do not think I could possibly have been more forthcoming.
The noble Lord takes me to task on the issue of the E.E.C. I did not introduce the E.E.C. His noble friend introduced the question of the E.E.C. Indeed, as I understand it, the E.E.C. is central to the purpose of the previous Administration's scheme for the use of tachographs. In fact, there is nothing peculiar in that I followed his noble friend on that point. I think that also deals with the query raised by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, addressed a specific question to me and he is entitled to a specific reply. He asked whether it is correct that the Labour Government included the tachograph provision in the Transport Act 1968. I have to tell him that I understand that is true. I also understand that, in fact, it was never implemented. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will appreciate that that is the reply to his question. May I say with regard to what the—
LORD TEVIOT: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I am most grateful for that statement. But I should also like to add that when the Labour Government of 1968 took their decision on tachographs they had the E.E.C. in mind, too. Whether it is agreeable, one does not know. But, as I have already said, we have accepted in road traffic legislation provisions like the breathalyser, which I think we all agree is very successful. Maybe we should wait and see whether tachographs are unsuccessful, and perhaps make an amendment later.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am sure that the Committee is grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said. May I come to the comments of my noble friend Lord Slater? It is important to know how this matter is regarded by those on both sides of the industry. I am grateful, as I thought the Committee was, for what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had to say on this subject. As I understand it, it is not only a matter of those who drive the vehicles. I am informed that there are a number of operators who are also opposed to tachographs. One of the reasons why the Government did not include the provision in the Bill when it was drafted is that installing the instruments would be a very expensive undertaking. The Government felt that, until it was inevitable that we were in the E.E.C., industry ought not to be called upon to carry the very great costs that would be involved. I would repeat what my noble friend Lord Slater said, that there is considerable resistance by drivers; I do not think it possible to over-estimate the feeling on this issue. They may be misguided but some of them have a feeling that this is almost like being called upon to carry a spy aboard. If we are to make progress over the use of tachographs, it would surely be better to avoid the deep feeling that we have been advised exists. I would repeat that it is not my intention to ask the Committee to oppose the Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for saying that. But I should like to know how the noble Lord has arrived at the advice which he is giving to the Committee. He said that the provision of tachographs would be expensive and that the special interests concerned do not like it. I understand that position, and that might be the reason why he felt it would not be right to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. But he is in Government. He has the responsibility here. He has given us the arguments against the measure. What are the arguments for it? What has led him to conclude that it is more desirable to have these instruments installed than not to have them? I feel that he has given us only half of the argument, and has come to a conclusion which does not arise out of the arguments which he has laid before the Committee.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Before the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy replies, may I emphasise that the whole essence of the clause which we are trying to move back into the Bill is that it is not compulsory but voluntary. I believe that that has been forgotten by the noble Lord, Lord Slater. I emphasise that it is a voluntary clause. Also who are the operators who are objecting to the installation of tachographs?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am in no position to give a list of the individuals concerned. I can only repeat the advice which I have been given. I fully accept that the clause is voluntary. As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, there was a critical debate when this subject was previously before the House, when I indicated that I was prepared to accept the Amendment. I do not know whether there is disappointment that I am being as forthcoming as I am, but I should have thought the noble Lord would have been satisfied that there were good reasons for moving the Amendment. If the Amendment is to be moved, it is up to those moving it to state the details of the case. His noble friend was willing to move it without any statement at all. It seemed to me that it would be useful if we could have some discussion on it. I do not think I can usefully add anything further.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My noble friend answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, regarding the infallibility of this type of recording instrument. Are we satisfied, however, that perfection has now been achieved? Can we install these instruments or make these provisional arrangements for them before we know how perfect they are? Furthermore, if we exempt a driver from recording in his log any offence that may be committed, or thought to be committed, what evidence can be produced in connection with it? Does this cut right across the keeping of the log or, if that is done away with, will these recording instruments be utilised in a court of law in order to implement the rest of the law attached to these driving regulations? They are so very important. There is, of course, a general reluctance by drivers to use these instruments, but I would take the line that we should be certain about their
844
perfection. To the best of my knowledge, our scientists have not given us that assurance. The technological people who install them have not given that assurance. So far as I know, sufficient research has not taken place.
Although my noble friend said that he is prepared to accept the clause, I have some doubts as to whether we have reached the position where, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said, we ought to make temporary provisions by the clause—because it may make regulations. Before we embrace a clause of this description, some further assurance ought to be given that sufficient research has taken place, and that it will be infallible when it is installed. The recording of the log is so important in regard to safety, welfare and other matters to do with drivers' hours, et cetera. It is a very important step that we are proposing. My noble friend has said that he is prepared to accept the Amendment, but I should have thought it-better to ask for it to be withdrawn until we receive the assurances which have not yet been given.
LORD THOMAS: I should like to support this Amendment. The argument that the drivers, the operators, do not like this tachograph, which has not yet been totally developed, does not cut any ice with me. I think that this permissive installation ought to be provided for because if pilots of aircraft have no objection to having black boxes on their aircraft, then drivers of passenger vehicles and heavy lorries, and so forth, ought not to object to having their performance suitably recorded. I support the Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: In view of the fact that the noble Lord has been good enough to say that he is willing to accept this Amendment, I am not inclined to prolong the discussion any further. I must confess that the route by which he has arrived at this advice is still somewhat of a mystery to me, but since he is willing to accept an Amendment from these Benches who am I to press him further? Thanks to the good judgment of the noble Lord opposite and of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. who is also concerned with matters relating to the Department of the Environment, we have now reached the position where the three clauses which were omitted from the Bill when it was republished (this

845
Bill, we might recall, was introduced by the previous Conservative Administration)—that is to say, the clauses on the reduction of the age for driving certain vehicles, the provision for more flexible rural transport and, now, tachographs—have all been replaced. The Government have seen the virtues of the Bill as it was originally drafted and laid before the House, so I suggest that the Question is now put.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Experimental introduction of road humps for controlling vehicle speeds]:
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.52 p.m.
EARL HOWE: Having listened carefully to what has taken place previously, I am hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, who has shown such kindness and resilience, will possibly do the same thing so far as this clause is concerned. I am quite sure that when this clause was inserted by the Government it was done with every good intention, but, knowing the situation that this sort of road hump creates, I frankly do not think it will work. I think it is going to prove costly, unnecessary and possibly dangerous. I do not know how many noble Lords here (or noble Baronesses, for that matter) have ever had the pleasure of riding a motor cycle or of sitting on the pillion of one, or even of riding in the chair of a motor cycle and sidecar, but I can assure your Lordships that two wheels or three wheels being ridden, or even driven, over humps of this nature will be most unpleasant and could be very dangerous. Would it not have been a good thing, in the circumstances, to have consulted both big motoring organisations and the B.M.F., the British Motorcycle Federation? I think the Government could have received some very useful information as to what the B.M.F. feel, because with regard to these so-called "sleeping policeman" they know what they are talking about in detail.
In the country—in some of the rural areas in my county, for instance—we have for some time tried to put up bevelled kerbing, instead of the rather dangerous sharp-edged kerbs which we have in towns. That is all very well if you meet
846
it at an acute angle—an angle of about 45 degrees; you can then carry on across the verge. But if you were to meet bevelled kerbs head on—not just one, but several—it would prove very dangerous. These humps, I gather, are something like five inches high. If you think of hitting just one five-inch high obstacle in the road, and then think of hitting several, which is what I think this will mean, you will realise that it could be most dangerous. So I am hoping that this remedy will be reconsidered by Her Majesty's Government. Public service vehicles (an ambulance, for instance) or articulated vehicles, or commercial vehicles of that nature—public service vehicles as a whole—will not like it at all. On Sunday I am giving away a prize or prizes to the lorry driver of the year, and I am quite sure that even lorry drivers, with their heavy vehicles and their rather more fixed and rigid suspension, will find it very unpleasant and dangerous to have to come across these obstacles.
Even though there may be a speed limit of 15 m.p.h. I am sorry to say there are not many drivers of either private cars or heavy vehicles who will observe such a limit. The signs themselves may well be covered by snow or ice in wintertime so that you will not even see them; and, after all, we have such a forest of signs nowadays that if the motorist has to look at that he will not be expecting to find another one of this nature. So, purely on the grounds of road safety alone—and I know that is what we in this Committee are all interested in—I think it would be a great mistake to proceed with this particular clause. With those few words I ask your Lordships to support me in the deletion of this clause.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: The Question is, That this clause shall stand part of the Bill? Noble Lords who wish to leave it out will vote, if necessary, against the Question, That the clause stand part.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Having raised this question on Second Reading, I must say straightaway that I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for having written to me and consulted with me since on this particular clause. I raised the same point as my noble friend Lord Howe on the

847
danger to public vehicles, such as ambulances and fire engines, going about their normal duties in the correct manner; and I also mentioned motor cyclists. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, wrote to me and explained that in fact the maximum height of the humps would not be more than four inches—not five inches, as my noble friend was indicating. He said that the gradient would be tapered down, so that he, the Minister, believed that motor cyclists would not be too much in danger, but that larger vehicles, if speeding, would certainly not find it very comfortable, and it would therefore have the effect of reducing speed, which is the intention of this provision. The noble Lord. Lord Garnsworthy, emphasised, as I inquired on Second Reading. that the introduction of Clause 16 was experimental; and, to be fair to this clause, I think we must realise that it is not mandatory but experimental. It is on a par with safety belts, although in that case the Government have made up their mind. But this is an experimental clause, and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has been good enough to confirm that. I do not myself see why, in the interests of safety and of reducing speed in areas where it is necessary to do that, and where a speed limit in itself may not be having the desired effect, it is necessarily wrong to write off straight away the introduction of a hump.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has also assured me that the signs leading to these humps will be clearly visible and will not be of such a nature that snow will hide them, or something like that; they will be illuminated like other important road signs. So I must confess that many of the doubts and worries that I personally had with my experience on this side of your Lordships' House have been removed by the noble Lord in his very kind efforts to allay my anxiety. His object was to remove my doubts, and I must confess that he has succeeded. As this is an experimental clause, and as he has admitted that in the Bill it is experimental, I really do not see why we should agree to the deletion of this clause. It is an experiment in the interests of safety.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I should like to add a few words in support of the
848
noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. I have had experience of seeing a sign saying "humps" on private drives and then thought that I could be very clever and could drive faster than the sign said. I found it a very effective method of reducing speed. If it can be introduced correctly and safely, I think it would save police time and leave them to control other things. I should like therefore to support the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in keeping this good experimental clause in the Bill.
LORD PARGITER: I should certainly not be in opposition to the continuation of this experimentally, but what is required is whether or not there is to be a term to the experiment and whether or not we shall be informed of the results. If there is no limit, it could go on for years as an experiment. There comes a time, however, when an experiment should be either concluded as not being worth going on with or alternatively made part of the law so that it may be done where an authority wishes so to do in order to reduce speed. A good deal depends on the shape of the hump as to whether or not it will have a serious effect upon a vehicle riding over it. Further, we should be more than satisfied that the signs on the approaches to a section of road which is to be subject to a reduced speed by this method are beyond doubt visible at all times and in all circumstances. Those are the things we want to know. It is not that we want to stop the experiment, but that it should be a properly controlled experiment and that we should be informed from time to time as to the results of the experiment.
In exactly the same way, the bus lane experiment must go on. But there are two or three things we should know about it. Outside the hours when the bus lane is in operation, you may have the position where one vehicle is in the outside lane and another comes in on the inside. Almost inevitably vehicles will be parked along there and then somebody tries to cut in. Even in the bus lane experiment there are all sorts of dangers that want ironing out. There are many matters to sort out and on which the House should be informed. I do not oppose the introduction of bumps on those grounds but merely want to know from time to time what is happening to them.
LORD GRENFELL: I would not go finally against this Amendment, but I hope that great care will be taken in deciding where these bumps are to be tried. I am thinking particularly of the extreme danger of bumps in the road where ambulances are concerned. We thought of trying this in a hospital with which I was connected, but we came to the conclusion that we should not put bumps in because the ease of the person inside the ambulance was not helped by the fact that these bumps were in the road. We have also to think of police cars which have to go at a fast pace and where an axle can easily be broken. Although there may be something to be said for this procedure to prevent people going fast, great care must be taken in where these bumps are put so that the dangers involved are not too great.
LORD FERRIER: I first saw bumps of this nature in 1930 in the State of Oregon. I do not know how many States have them now or, indeed, if they are still in use in Oregon, but these bumps were only at intersections at right angles; in other words, they were at dangerous intersections where here we have a "stop" sign. I could not agree more with what other noble Lords had to say about their dangers and what a bump they can give. I know one golf club which has bumps, and I should hate to drive an ambulance over them. I have two sons at a prep school where there are bumps of this nature every 20 yards up the drive.
I have lately been driving a great deal on motorways and I feel that this experiment has already begun. I do not know how many of your Lordships have noticed that these wide transverse yellow lines at the approach to roundabouts are now raised above the level of the road. You can definitely feel the effect and you can see that something is coming along. I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on Second Reading said that this was experimental and I personally feel that we can leave it with the powers that be. After all, they are highly skilled and the Road Research Laboratory will have their own views. I have not read any of their reports about them. Four inches sounds to be rather high, but accepting that this is to be experimental, and if, as I believe, this particular protection will save lives, then I think we might let it stand.
5.4 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord the Minister replies, may I ask a number of specific questions? Is it proposed that the hump is to be accompanied by a speed limitation as well? If it is not accompanied by a speed limitation—and I am sorry the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is not here—I can assure him that it is comparatively easy to get over a hump in a road with a four-wheeled vehicle without any undue inconvenience or disturbance. The whole trick of the thing is to take one wheel at a time, so you set your car diagonally. That is exactly what happens on private driveways, and if one sees that the road is reasonably clear—in other words, if you can use the whole of the road, point your motor car diagonally, take one wheel over at a time—it would be no worse than the extraordinarily dangerous white raised line that is seen in a road which diverts the passage of a motor car so very easily.
I would also ask why, in paragraph (7)(b) it says:
"… it is of such a shape that no damage is likely to be caused to the tyres of a vehicle passing over the hump."
With tyres in good condition I do not think that any reasonably constructed hump can cause any particular damage, so why is it necessary to particularly specify that part of the vehicle? Were I drafting the Bill I would set down a great many other parts of a motor car which can suffer even greater damage. I recall driving a rather famous make of motor car which has twin silencers, two in line on each side, which I removed quite neatly on the Kingston Road only about three years ago because a manhole cover was slightly raised. If one even passed over a hump one is quite likely to remove that part. I should have thought that it might have been the Minister's responsibility to see that no damage came to my car through driving reasonably over a hump.
The last question I should like to address to the Minister—and I do not think in all fairness that he will be able to answer it—arises out of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in relation to the diagonal yellow lines now used to give the visual and physical warning of an intersection. I understand that the visual aspect of this particular warning device has alarmed a number of

851
doctors in that it can create a circumstance which leads to migraine. This has been reported on a number of occasions by three different people to two different doctors, to my knowledge, and it is always at exactly the same point in the journey; that is, the intersection on to the M.4 as one comes away from Windsor. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer that question but he might like to let me know if there is any information on this point.
The only conceivable acceptance of road humps that I can think of is where they are constructed so as to give some gap across each section of the highway to enable two-wheeled vehicles to pass with a degree of safety. This of course then invites the four-wheeled driver to attempt to offer two wheels through the gap so that he has only two bumps on the other side. Unless the Minister has some rather better ideas as to how these things may operate and be constructed then I am rather in favour of supporting my noble friend Lord Howe.
LORD FERRIER: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I point out that he said "diagonal yellow lines". I have just driven up North in Yorkshire, and the lines I referred to are completely transverse. They are very wide, painted yellow and extend probably a hundred yards before approaching a roundabout. They certainly give not only a sense of flashing light but also one of corrugation, which I thought was an excellent idea.
LORD SOMERS: Before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether he could make one point clear. From what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, I gathered that a single large hump was intended, but from the Bill it seems that there would be a series of small humps—rather like corrugated iron—which I think would probably slow up traffic quite appreciably.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: Before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether I might put this point to him. He stated that the humps would be not more than four inches. Does he propose to put forward an Amendment on the Report stage to amend 7(a) from 5 inches to 4 inches?
EARL HOWE: I do not think it matters much whether this clause comes out or stays in. Let the Ministry have their toys, because I feel it is absolutely impracticable to have these things on the main road. Some of the older type of sports car have a ground clearance of perhaps only one or two inches. The Minister would therefore be accused of removing the silencers from half the vehicles in the country! As proof of that, one has only to see the notices that are erected at level crossings these days: "Uneven surface: danger of grounding". Will similar notices be erected alongside our main roads in respect of these humps? I do not think so. It is impracticable and I do not think it matters whether it is in or out of the Bill.
5.13 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS: I do not wish to delay the proceedings in any way, but I would disagree with my noble friend who has just spoken, because I have had experience of these humps abroad. They are most effective. If one goes over a hump rather quickly for the first time, one treats a hump with the utmost respect the second time. I am wholly in favour of this experiment and I think it would be a good thing if we tried it out.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The Committee will, I am sure, agree that we have had an extremely useful discussion on the value of this clause. Before going any further, I should like to say that I was concerned before coming here to-day as to whether the two main motoring organisations had been consulted. In view of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, I have taken advice and have been reassured that the A.A. and the R.A.C. were consulted informally and accepted the case for the experiments which this clause would allow. I thought the noble Earl would like to have that information.
Several of your Lordships have clearly had some experience of humps, either in this country or abroad. I believe the noble Earl. Lord Howe, will know the part of the counry to which I shall refer from my own personal experience, because he lived quite close at one time. He will know the roads that run through the Gatton estate: we have a residential school there for 500 children. A great deal of traffic drove at speed through the estate and we were very concerned about

853
the danger to the young people for whom we were responsible. We have installed a number of humps, reasonable in height and width, and I rang up the secretary of the school shortly before coming here from the Department late this morning, to inquire whether there had been any single accident caused or any report of any vehicle having been damaged. He said that to his knowledge there had been no accident, and certainly no one had come to him to complain, but there had been a considerable reduction in vehicles travelling at high speed through the estate.
Surely we all want—and there is no division of opinion about it—to achieve the greatest possible degree of safety. I ought to remind the Committee that residential streets account for some 100,000 injury accidents each year, including 40,000 pedestrian casualties. It is against that background that I believe we should consider this clause. This is not an experiment that will be undertaken lightly. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory have conducted all the experiments they usefully can, without going on to public highways, and it is felt that the time has arrived when we ought to allow a limited number of experiments on public highways. I deliberately use the word "limited", because it is not intended to instal these humps all over the place. I cannot give a reply to my noble friend Lord Pargiter as to the time limit, because clearly there is need here for some flexibility. It is an experiment that will be properly planned and controlled, and it will be publicly reported upon. It is not something that is to be undertaken and on which decisions will be made privately. There will he a public Report as to the results of the experiment.
I have pursued this question of the height of the humps, and it is thought that four inches will be about right, but the figure of five inches was mentioned, and indeed a question was asked about this matter because it was thought to be a figure which should be included in the Bill in order to allow some flexibility. As I understand it there is no intention of taking risks. As I indicated during Second Reading, great care will be taken on the placing of the humps. Clearly we are not intending that anything shall be done to endanger the lives of persons,
854
since the object of the experiment is to save possible injuries and to prevent accidents; so quite clearly there is a determination not to put life at risk and therefore the humps will be signposted and there will be adequate warning.
When we come to the question of speed, they will only be placed where there is very good reason for the avoidance of excessive speed. I have referred to the large number of accidents in residential streets. There is not one Member of this Committee who is not aware of the excessive speeding all day and almost every day. Whether the speed limits are 30 m.p.h., 40 m.p.h., or whatever it may be, we all know that they are being flouted. It is one thing to take risks oneself as a motorist, but it is another to put other people unnecessarily and improperly at risk. I am satisfied—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for what he said—that we can leave it to the T.R.R.L. to see that this experiment is conducted in such a way that, at the end of it, we shall have information that is really useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised the question of damage to vehicles. Clearly, if motorists drive at excessive speed and ignore properly placed signs they must take the responsibility. I appreciate that he drew attention to the fact that all we are concerned with here is damage to tyres. There is clearly a very good reason for ensuring that we avoid damage to tyres. That is why the specifications are set out as they are. The humps will not be installed on high-speed roads; they will be so sited that approach at high speed is virtually impossible. I do not think we can be more specific that that.
I have been asked a number of questions and I do not know whether I can recall them all, although I have made notes of most of them. The attention of my right honourable friend will be drawn to everything that has been said, whether the Members of the Committee have supported the clause or have voiced disquiet about it. I am grateful for the support from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I think the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, really answered the criticism voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I do not think I want to add anything to what he

855
had to say. I took particular note of what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, had to say regarding damage to ambulances. If every motorist drove as carefully as ambulance drivers, we should probably have far fewer accidents. The point was well made and was equally well taken. It is impracticable to cover in legislation all the matters that we should like, but I am sure Members of the Committee appreciate that the laboratory have great experience in research of this kind and can be relied upon to conduct operations on public roads with full regard to all considerations of safety. I appreciate the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made this discussion possible. I hope he feels that it has been a valuable debate and will not, in the circumstances, wish to take this matter to a Division.
LORD FERRIER: I am sure that the Committee appreciates the considered, thoughtful and generous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has dealt with this matter. We have talked about the road hump being five inches high. I think that five inches is probably too high, and it should be four inches. Subsection 7(a) says:
"… 5 inches above, or lower that surface by more than 2 inches below, the surface of the highway …"
It is conceivable that between the bottom of a recess and the top of the hump it may make a difference of seven inches. My only suggestion is that the noble Lord might think again and, at a later stage, possibly alter the wording of that subsection.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: It would be churlish of me to say that we would not do so, but this matter has been much discussed and I have given an indication as to the probable height. It is thought that we ought to have the degree of flexibility that subsection 7(a) provides.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE:Can the noble Lord tell us what is envisaged regarding the width of these humps? That will obviously make a great difference in the difficulties created for the cars.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I had in
856
tended to make that point. When we talk about width, we probably mean length. As I understand it, it is likely to be 12 inches.
EARL HOWE: I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported me but on the word "experiment" I am afraid that I have no great faith in the Government's experiment. I call to mind the experiment over the 70 m.p.h. speed limit, which rapidly became permanent and which, so far as I can see, is still permanent. I am glad that this debate has raised interest regarding road safety which I feel is a vitally important matter. I am a vice-chairman of the R.A.C., but I was not aware that the R.A.C. had been consulted over this matter. I shortly have to go to a meeting there, and I will soon find out the details.
I am not at all satisfied. First, I am doubtful whether an experiment will ever come to an end. I have failed to relieve myself of that concern, but I have made a protest which I feel was well worth making. There is so much one would like to say on this matter, but I would be the last person to waste the time of the Committee on matters which do not interest all Members. There are various points that I might raise with the noble Lord at a later date, bearing in mind that I am prepared not to take this matter to a Division.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I should like to make a correction. I should have said "12 feet" and not "12 inches" earlier on. I am sure the Committee will have realised my slip of the tongue. If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, cares to write to me reasonably urgently, I will do what I can to see whether we can get replies to him before we reach the Report stage.
EARL HOWE: I am surprised that when the noble Lord referred to the two motoring organisations he did not include the British Motorcycle Federation as well. They are the people I am concerned about probably more than the motorist.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Variation of penalties for certain offences]:
5.29 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 26, line 16, at end insert—
"(6) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section or Schedules 5 to this Act the following provisions of the 1972 Act, namely,
Section 2, section 5(1), section 5(2), section 6(1), section 6(2), section 9(3), section 25(4), and section 29 shall be deemed to be offences punishable with imprisonment for the purposes of:—

(a) Section 20, Criminal Justice Act 1948 (as amended) (Borstal Training)

(b) Section 4, Criminal Justice Act 1961 (as amended) (Detention of offenders aged 14 to 20)

(c) Section 12, Criminal Justice Act 1961 (Return to Borstal on re-conviction)

(d) Section 19, Criminal Justice Act 1948 (Attendance Centres)

(e) Section 60, Mental Health Act 1959 (Hospital or Guardianship Orders)

(f) Section 67, Mental Health Act 1959 (Restriction Order in respect of a Hospital Order)

(g) Section 15, Criminal Justice Act 1972 (Community Service Orders)

(h) Section 26, Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (Remand for Medical Reports)

(i) Section 24(2)(a) Criminal Justice Act 1967 (To enable a warrant of arrest to be issued after conviction)".

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Janner, who is unfortunately abroad. I am very heartened that the three Ministers sitting on the Front Bench at the moment are all magistrates, as I am—I notice that one is leaving at this point—and therefore they have a consumer interest in this Amendment. It would be unnecessary, I think, to go over the whole of the debate which we had, very exhaustively, throughout the passage of this Bill on the previous occasion, but I do recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, seemed to think that we had a lust for imprisoning traffic offenders and that this was the sole purpose of moving this Amendment. As was reiterated by several of your Lordships who are magistrates, that was not the purpose at all. In order to retain the opportunity for various constructive alternatives to imprisonment it appears necessary to have power of imprisonment by the magistrates'
858
courts for various dangerous road traffic offences.
I do not wish to go over the ground which will be covered by my noble friend Lady Macleod when she comes to her Amendment. I would only mention the one example I mentioned previously, which I still consider to be a very good one of a dangerous offence; namely, failure to stop and report after an accident. People have been left to die, and the kind of person who fails to stop and report is invariably, I would suggest, the hit-and-run driver.
In this Amendment we are emphasising the importance of the kind of constructive alternatives to imprisonment which need to be retained. I will not go through them all—they speak for themselves—but I will emphasise particularly the need to be able to refer for community service orders. It was your Lordships who, in a very enlightened way, originally debated the great value of community service orders and of the ability for the magistrates to be able to retain the attendance centres; and, of course, it is very important to emphasise that the magistrates' courts would not be able to issue a warrant of arrest after conviction if they did not retain powers of imprisonment as an alternative.
I would remind your Lordships that during the recent industrial dispute in Scotland it was an imprisonable offence to buy petrol. If that was introduced, and very rightly, during that time of stress, it seems to me that offences which are offences against the person in many cases are equally important and in many cases much more so. People, I would suggest, will always be more important than property. There is at the moment a suggestion that there should be an expert inquiry into the laws on dangerous driving, particularly those on driving under the influence of drink. It therefore seems the wrong moment to remove from the magistrates the power of imprisonment as an alternative.
I was very heartened by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, appeared to accept an earlier Amendment, even though there seemed to be still some debate whether it should be accepted by those who had proposed it. I therefore hope that he will influence his noble friend who is to reply to take the same line on this, because I should

859
not like to have to attempt to divide the House against my own Front Bench. I do not think this is a reasonable request and I am very surprised that with all the useful additions to the Bill, the fact that seat belts have been brought in, that non-parking on pavements has been brought in, several things which were subjects of Amendments, this still seems to remain a stumbling block.
On behalf of the magistrates—who if I may say so with some due sense of humility, serve the community in a very remarkable way when we consider the amount of time and care which they devote to their work, all as a voluntary piece of service—I would say that they will not exercise the power of imprisonment unless they are absolutely certain that there is no other way of dealing with a case. But they are particularly anxious to retain the constructive alternative. For that reason I beg to move this Amendment.
5.35 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: This is familiar ground to your Lordships, because we have been over it before and we spent a good deal of time in considering this matter. On that occasion my noble friend Lady Phillips, if I remember—and I am speaking entirely from memory—said on December 4 that she herself saw no merit in sending people to prison. I think that is the substance of what she said. It is true that in the present oil situation a crisis has arisen and in that kind of situation crisis measures have to be taken, and I do not think, if I may say so with respect, that we can equate the position which we are discussing now with an emergency situation which we hope will not be with us for much longer and for which any legislation that has been passed will probably disappear.
The difference between the Government—and I want to put the Government's point of view—and my noble friend can be summarised fairly quickly and simply. Noble Lords may well ask: what is the issue before us? The issue is one upon which there was considerable agreement between my right honourable friend the present Home Secretary and his predecessor, Mr. Robert Carr, both of whom wanted—and certainly my
860
right honourable friend wants now—a general penal policy which will reduce the scope of imprisonment and, if possible, the prison population.
I think we must ask ourselves whether the penalties of imprisonment which one finds in the Acts at the present moment are serving any useful purpose at all. It is true that magistrates at the present time have the power in certain cases to commit to prison, but I would remind your Lordships that of a total of motoring offences amounting to over 150,000 something like 120,000 were dealt with by fines. If we take the example of persons convicted of being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs, 104 of them were found guilty, of whom 98 were fined. If we think of persons convicted of driving while unfit through drink or drugs, there were over 5,000 found guilty of whom 4,994 were fined.
The argument that magistrates should have the ultimate sanction to send people to prison may in itself be a good argument but, frankly, it is not a sanction which is used to any extent whatsoever. The present Bill provides an opportunity of doing so in respect of a numerically large number of offences for which, I agree, the magistrates' use of imprisonment is proportionately very low; and that is my reason for quoting the figures. At the same time, it enables the Government to relieve the Crown Courts of a large number of cases which do not need to be tried there but for which the defendant has a right to elect jury trial because the maximum summary penalty exceeds three months' imprisonment. The most serious offences remain triable on indictment; in other words, the most serious offences under this Bill will remain triable on indictment; namely, in the Crown Courts, but it will be at the instance of the prosecution, and the Crown Court's powers, including imprisonment, are undiminished by this Bill. It means that there will be an onus on the prosecution to ask the court of summary jurisdiction to send a specific case for trial if in the opinion and the knowledge possessed by the prosecution this is one that should go to the Crown Court for more severe penalties than the magistrates' court will be empowered to impose under this Bill. It seems that this is the right way of dealing with it.

861
Particular anxiety has been expressed about the loss of the custodial powers for juvenile and young adult offenders, but, as I tried to point out to your Lordships a moment or two ago, if one examines the criminal statistics one sees they show that magistrates' use of these powers in relation to road traffic offences has been very limited indeed and not so different from the use of custodial powers in adult cases as to make young offenders a class apart in this respect. It is a fact that magistrates' courts impose prison sentences both for under-21s and for over-21s on very rare occasions. As I tried to point out to your Lordships just now, when serious cases are coming before the magistrates' courts, where the question of depriving a person of his liberty should be taken into account, then all the prosecution has to do is to ask for the case to be remitted to the Crown Court. The argument may be advanced that fines are inappropriate or unenforceable in the case of young persons, particularly juveniles. But if this is so, the existing pattern of sentencing is hard to explain, since fines, as I pointed out, remain by far the most common sentence for this age group and, together with discharges, probation and supervision orders, embrace all but a small proportion of sentences on those between 14 and 21.
To turn to another point, the recently published Report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System of Young Adult Offenders favours an increased emphasis on non-custodial treatment. The Home Secretary has welcomed the Report in principle. Yet I must tell the Committee that what is being proposed in these Amendments to-day flies totally in the face of the general approach of the Advisory Council which was set up to consider matters such as this. We must ask ourselves in the light of the knowledge we have—and we have a great deal of knowledge—whether a short prison sentence has any real effect to the good on people on whom it is imposed. This is not an indictment of a prison sentence. The whole value of committing a person to prison takes into account whether he needs some kind of training which will help him to lead a better life on return to the community. But the kind of prison sentences which are proposed are, I submit, unlikely to have that effect.
862
The Government are satisfied on a matter of general penal policy that, with the exception of driving while disqualified, offences under the Road Traffic Act should cease to carry imprisonment on summary conviction with all that that entails. I want to make it perfectly clear that this does not apply to driving while disqualified. The Government, indeed both sides of your Lordships' Chamber, came to the conclusion that this was a serious matter that had to be dealt with in a serious manner, and so the policy does not include driving while disqualified. It is worth repeating that in respect of the most serious offences not only imprisonment but a whole range of other powers, both custodial and non-custodial, will remain available if the person is convicted on indictment; namely, found guilty in the Crown Court. The Government have every confidence in the ability of prosecuting authorities to select those cases which are serious enough to warrant trial by jury in the Crown Court. This is often done, as magistrates will know, in other kinds of cases which come before magistrates' courts when the prosecuting solicitor or counsel asks for this or that particular case to be committed for trial.
It may be suggested that the Bill is premature—in fact I think my noble friend Lady Phillips said so—in seeking in effect to alter the distribution of work between the magistrates' court and the Crown Court at a time when a Committee is sitting, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice James, to consider exactly this question. But I do not believe that this is the case. I must point out to your Lordships that the James Committee are not concerned with statutory penalties. And, although it is part of the Bill's purpose to relieve the Crown Court of the burden of straightforward road traffic cases which come to it as a result of the defendant's right to elect jury trial in many instances, the Government's principle motive in including in the Bill penalty provisions is one of penal policy; namely, the desire to reduce the scope of imprisonment wherever this can be done without endangering public safety. I would suggest that this is desirable.
If we are bothered, as many of us are, about the increase in crime among the 17 to 21 age group, or even the 14 to 17 age group, we may have to ask ourselves

863
whether some form of non-custodial treatment is not far better than some form of custodial treatment. The attendance centre has been mentioned. I believe I am right in saying that there are only two attendance centres in the country—I repeat, only two. Detention centres have been mentioned. Anyone who knows the functioning of a detention centre I think will have grave doubts as to whether it serves the useful purpose that many of us hoped it would serve. I suggest there are other ways of dealing with this question, and one way is to continue fining, in appropriate cases, and to use the non-custodial methods that are open to magistrates to deal with our young offenders. I ask your Lordships to resist these Amendments.
5.48 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The Minister appeared to be covering some of the later Amendments, which I rather avoided doing. I will still avoid it and keep to the one Amendment we are discussing. Perhaps I am not very bright, but it seemed to me that he was trying to have it both ways—although when I say "he" I am, of course, referring to the Government and not to the Minister personally. On the one hand he was arguing that magistrates did not use these powers much and with this I would agree. But in the next breath he said that it was part of a penal policy that we did not want to put so many people in prison. Since magistrates were not putting them in prison, I could not quite follow how the retention of this opportunity would aggravate the situation. Also, I could not follow—again, I am subject to correction—the Minister's point about referral to the Crown Courts. I have been sitting in court this morning and, as I understand it, when one refers to another court for punishment one is not allowed to specify the kind of punishment; this must he left to the Crown Court. So if the magistrates wanted a community service order (and incidentally I did not mention the other one), or an attendance centre order, they would not be able to specify that; they would have to leave the punishment to the Crown Court, which might well take an entirely different line, a much more severe line. Therefore, I do not think that this is a legitimate point.
864
I agree, and I have said each time I have spoken on this matter, that the magistrates have not sent many people to prison, but I do not regard that as a legitimate argument for taking away completely the powers of imprisonment. If we are to apply this argument this might well go through our whole structure of law; because certain things are not done, there is no need to have any powers of deterrent at all. The magistrates are concerned about these other angles to this matter. If there was a way of disentangling the fact that it has to be connected with their powers of imprisonment, I am sure they would be happy. But since this is the ultimate sanction I would say at this time—and I was not referring to the James Committee when I said that another Committee was sitting, it is this new Committee of Inquiry that I was referring to—that I still feel that this is not the moment to make a major change like this.
When we discussed the Bill before, the Minister said that he would look at it, and he came back with some not very convincing answers which have been repeated today. Can I ask him—I am very reluctant to divide the Committee on this—whether my noble friend would be a little more flexible on this matter? Is his right honourable friend so completely tied to the idea that he is not even prepared to listen to the voices of a number of responsible people who have been carrying out their duties with great care for many years? He did not appear to me to give me a crumb of hope at all, but can I ask him, before I make a final decision, whether his right honourable friend is prepared to look at this matter?
LORD LEATHERLAND: Can I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the matter we are now discussing is about whether we should preserve the penalty of imprisonment for offences under Schedule 5, Part I? If that is so, I should like to say a word about it. The noble Baroness informs me that that was her intention. It has been the habit during this debate to declare one's interest as a magistrate. I was a magistrate for over 25 years, and I still am. I have not hesitated to send people to prison when I thought that they were guilty of some wicked offence. I have abstained from sending them to prison when it was a

865
matter of forgetfulness, carelessness, or a minor offence. That is the general mental attitude that I have adopted during more than a quarter of a century on the Bench. But it seems to me that if we are to restore the penalty of imprisonment, and the right of magistrates to impose that penalty of imprisonment for some of the very minor offences enumerated in Schedule 5, Part I, then we are guilty of doing something of a regressive nature.
If your Lordships will look at pages 42 and 43 of the Bill, which contain Schedule 5, Part I, you will see certain offences. My noble friend, the Government, and the Bill, propose to abolish sentence of imprisonment for these offences. My noble friend Lady Phillips, who has an even kinder heart than I have in most matters, proposes that the penalty of imprisonment should still be available to magistrates. Let us look at the kind of offences we are discussing. Contravention of regulations as to conduct of passengers in public service vehicles. I suppose some young people, and probably some old people, do not conduct themselves with the requisite degree of propriety while travelling on a bus, but ought we to send them to prison for that? The Bill proposes to increase the fine from £20 to £100, and I should think that that was appropriate in those circumstances.
Another of these offences for which it is suggested imprisonment ought to be preserved is that of an unlicensed person driving, or acting as a conductor of a public service vehicle, or the employment of such a person. If I went along and got a job as a bus conductor without having been licensed for that purpose, surely it would be going a bit far to send me to prison, or to imprison my employer? I think that it is sufficient, as the Bill suggests, to increase the fine for that offence from £20 to £100.
We have another of these offences for which it is suggested that imprisonment is a proper penalty; failure to give notice to the traffic commissioners of failure in, damage to, or alteration of a public service vehicle. Imagine for a moment that I operate, for the benefit of my neighbours in surrounding villages, a small public service vehicle—one of these little buses that take a dozen people. Suppose that I am a kind hearted owner of this small
866
bus and I do not like the way the passengers are bumped about on the seats. Suppose that I, of my own volition, out of the kindness of my heart, put cushions on these scats. What have I done? I have altered this public service vehicle, and so I could be sent to prison, under the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Phillips. I should have thought that the £20 fine to be increased to £100 fine under the Bill is adequate for the kind of horrible offence that I have committed!
There is another offence for which it is suggested that we should send people to prison, contravention of regulations providing for control of the number of passengers in a public service vehicle. Here again let us visualise me in the capacity of conductor of a bus. It is supposed to accommodate 40 people. By some accident in the heat of the moment, the hustle and bustle of the busy time of day, I have allowed 41 people to get on that bus, and I have not ordered off that 41st person. At the present moment I can be fined £20, which is probably generous; the Bill suggests that I should be fined £100, which perhaps is appropriate. But I do not think that it would be appropriate that I should be sent to prison for that offence.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I wonder whether my noble friend would give way? This is an interesting argument he is pursuing, but I should like to point out that I am not actually restoring anything, I am trying to maintain the status quo. Since the noble Lord, as a magistrate, has been part of this system, it is extraordinary that he has allowed what he considers these injustices to have gone on so long without coming to your Lordships' House to suggest modifications much earlier.
LORD LEATHERLAND: In my 25 years on the Bench I have never allowed politics to interfere with my judicial capacity. I enforce the law as it is. Let us note more of these terrifying penalties to be imposed on people. Failure of driver to produce work ticket on demand by police. I might have been so busy driving the bus that I have not had time to prepare my work ticket. At the moment I could be fined £20, or sent to prison. This is a reform in the other direction; I could only be fined £100 in the future. There are several other offences of that kind which might be due

867
to carelessness, to the fact that the bus driver, or conductor, or proprietor was not sufficiently observant of the law, and that he deserved to be punished. I feel that the proper punishment in those cases is a financial penalty and not the threat of a man being sent to prison. I regard this Amendment as a most regressive step.
5.58 p.m.
LORD FOOT: I regret that we are getting into a hopeless muddle on this matter. If I correctly understand the Amendment that the noble Baroness has moved, it is not proposed to maintain the status quo, and it is not proposed that the magistrates should retain the right to send people to prison for any offence except for that of driving while disqualified. In the debate we had on the previous Bill we then argued as to whether it was right to deprive the magistrates of the powers they have had in the past to send people to prison for a variety of road traffic offences. We debated that matter at length. For reasons best known to them, the people who were then proposing that the status quo should be maintained, and the magistrates should retain their powers to send people to prison for these offences, have not on this occasion pursued that argument on the Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is that they have accepted Clause 19 as it stands. That is the clause which removes from magistrates the right to send people to prison for road traffic offences, with the single exception of driving while disqualified. It states—
"Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section or Schedule 5 to this Act the following provisions of the 1972 Act, namely",
and goes on to set out certain Sections which deal with types of road traffic offences. It says that for those purposes those Sections of the Criminal Justice Act,
"shall be deemed to be offences punishable with imprisonment for the purposes of"
certain other Sections of the Criminal Justice Act and other Statutes.
The movers of this Amendment have put it in that way, because they want to be able to retain this variety of alternatives to imprisonment, especially for
868
dealing with young offenders. Therefore, they are not asking that imprisonment shall be retained by magistrates as a punishment for traffic offences. They are saying that certain serious offences shall be regarded as offences which are deemed to be punishable by imprisonment for the purposes of these other Acts. I am afraid that the whole of the speech which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland—much as we enjoyed it—is wholly irrelevant to what we are discussing to-day. I should have thought that we should be directing our minds to the subject matter of the Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I did not get a reply from my noble friend, or any crumb of comfort. I am in some dilemma because this is not really my Amendment. But as we have yet another stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FOOT: Before we dispose of this clause, may I take the opportunity of drawing the Committee's attention to a matter that is different from those we have been discussing? I believe that although it is a legal point it is one of general interest and importance, and of some consequence not only to lawyers but also to laymen and all people who are interested in the proper administration of the criminal law. I hope to draw the attention of the Committee to some of the consequences which would follow from passing this clause into effect, which may not be apparent when it is first looked at.
I was attempting to say just now that what this clause does is to take away from the magistrates the powers which they have hitherto enjoyed—if "enjoyed" is the right word—of sending people to prison for certain types of traffic offences, the only exception to withdrawal of that authority being the case of the person who drives while disqualified. That is what the clause appears to do and indeed does. Before the Committee allows this clause to slip through, I want to draw attention to certain serious consequences which I believe will result if it passes and becomes the law of the land. This question as to whether it is right to take

869
away from magistrates the power of imprisonment for road traffic offences is one which we have debated at considerable length in the past, and it is an important matter. But it is not the point to which I want to address myself to-day.
I believe that there is hidden away here—not deliberately—a legal point of much more moment than the question whether or not we ought to leave the magistrates with the right to send people to prison for road traffic offences; that is the important principle of when, and in what circumstances, a citizen should have the right to elect to be tried by jury. May I attempt to explain to the Committee, if they do not already have the point, how that question arises under this clause? In this country, as all lawyers will know—and I shall try to simplify the matter—for the purpose of considering before what tribunal or court criminal offences are to be tried, you can divide them into three categories.
First, there is the indictable offence which can be tried, if it is in contention, only before a judge and jury at the Crown Court. There is then what is called by some people the intermediate offence; that is, an offence which can be dealt with either on indictment before a judge and jury, or summarily in certain circumstances by a magistrate. The third category is the summary offence which, subject to one vital qualification, is the sole prerogative and business of the magistrates' courts. The vital qualification—and this applies as much to the intermediate offence as to the summary offence—is that as the law stands at the moment, and as it has stood for very many years (indeed, if my recollection is right, throughout the whole of my professional life of something like forty years) the test as to whether a person has a right to be tried by a jury is whether, if he were dealt with before a magistrate, he would be liable at the hands of that magistrate to a term of imprisonment in excess of three months. That is the classic test by which it has been decided over the years whether an individual has a right to carry his case to a jury.
The layman may think that that is not unreasonable. Perhaps that is not a sensible way of drawing the line between the cases where a man ought to have the right to go to a jury, and those where he ought not. That test is embodied
870
to-day in Section 25 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1952. I doubt whether anybody would dispute that, whether or not that test is the right one and a good one, the question as to when and in what circumstances an individual should have the right to claim trial by jury is of considerable constitutional and criminal law importance.
I want to show the Committee how this clause impinges upon the right to claim trial by jury. As we know, with one single exception, the clause completely takes away from the magistrates the right to send people to prison for a road traffic offence. In doing that, it takes away from the magistrates the power to send people to prison in those cases where they have hitherto been able to send people to prison for a period of more than three months. Therefore, the effect of doing this is not only to deprive magistrates of the power to send people to prison, but automatically, at the same time, to deprive the individual of the right to claim trial by jury, which he has previously had, because the magistrates can no longer send him to prison at all; and, therefore, ipso facto they cannot send him to prison for a period of more than three months. So that what this clause does is to make inroads into the long-standing principle that if a person is in peril of going to prison for more than three months at the hands of the magistrates, he should then have the right to claim trial by jury.
I would ask the question: does it matter? If we are going to change the law and deny the right of people to claim trial by jury, does it matter if we deprive them of it in this way? I suggest that it matters a great deal, and for three reasons. First, I do not suppose the Committee will be surprised to hear that almost all the offences under the various Road Traffic Acts, for which a man is now liable to be sent to prison for more than three months by the magistrates, are offences of dishonesty. They are offences such as making false statements for the purpose of obtaining a licence or an insurance certificate; they are offences of telling lies; they are offences of falsifying documents. In fact, they are not road traffic offences at all; they are offences of dishonesty, and it is in these cases that one will find almost exclusively that the Legislature has seen fit to allow the magistrates to impose a

871
penalty of four months' imprisonment, in order that the accused person, the defendant, might have the right to claim trial by jury.
Let the Committee clearly understand what they will be doing if they pass this clause. They will be removing the right of a person who is charged with falsifying a document, with making a false representation for the purpose of obtaining a licence, or with knowingly making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining an insurance certificate, to trial by jury. Does it matter? I suggest that it matters a great deal, because when we are dealing with offences of dishonesty the penalty which is eventually imposed by a court on conviction is very often the least part of the punishment which the person undergoes. A conviction for an offence of dishonesty, falsification of documents, misrepresentation or knowingly making a false statement can smash a person's career and preclude him for ever from gaining employment in occupations where integrity and honesty are essential. Is it right that we should deprive these people of the right to be tried for such offences by their peers and by a jury? That is what this Committee is being invited to do.
The second reason why I suggest that it matters a very great deal whether or not we take away this right which has been previously enjoyed is this. I suggest to the Committee that if we do this and make it impossible for the person who is accused of making a false statement in connection with a traffic offence to claim the right to be tried by jury we are going to create absurd anomalies in the law. If you are going to say to the person who is charged with making a false statement about an offence which has a traffic connotation that he has no right to go to a jury, what about the people who make false statements in other fields? They will remain able to go to a jury. If a person makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a medical certificate he has the right to trial by jury, because under the existing law he is liable to four months' imprisonment at the hands of the magistrates. What about the person who is alleged to have stolen a milk bottle from a doorstep? He will have the right to go to a jury under the
872
Theft Act, because he is liable before the magistrates to six months' imprisonment. What about the alleged shoplifter who purloins a packet of sweets? He or she will be entitled to claim trial by jury. But the person who is alleged to have made a false statement for the purpose of obtaining insurance under this clause—and could there be a more serious allegation?—will be deprived of the right to trial by his peers.
The third reason why I suggest that in this clause we are engaged upon a most dangerous course is this. Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to the fact that for some years past we have had sitting the James Commission, presided over by Lord Justice James. What are the terms of reference of that Commission? Why are they there? They are there to consider the distribution of business in the criminal courts between the magistrates' courts and the Crown Courts, and they have issued a working document for public consumption which tries to explain their task. They have made it perfectly plain beyond a peradventure that they regard as absolutely essential to their deliberations the question of when and in what circumstances a man should have the right to claim trial by jury. Whatever the noble Lord may say about it, they have said that that question is central to the remit that they have received.
I do not know what the James Commission will eventually recommend. Indeed, I do not know what will be the future of the jury system in this country. These are grave matters which are the subject matter at the moment, and they are in the melting pot of public discussion and debate. But although I do not know what the James Commission will recommend, I am tolerably sure that I know what they are not going to recommend. What they are not going to recommend is that a person who falsifies a document for some road traffic purpose should not have a right to trial by jury, but that somebody who falsifies a document for the purpose of getting a medical certificate or for the purpose of getting a social security payment should have the right to trial by jury. That is the one thing I am confident that the James Commission are not going to do. But that is precisely what the Committee is now being asked to do in the posture and

873
situation which it is being invited to adopt by this clause.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Lord, Lord Foot, is persuasive, but is he right in implying, as I think he has implied, that people who have committed dishonest acts in point of fact always have the right to be tried by judge and jury? I do not think that that is the position. I believe there are many road traffic offences with an element of dishonesty that have never been triable on indictment. I can think of only one at present, that of a person using a false coin in a parking meter, perhaps not a serious offence but nevertheless one which has an element of dishonesty in it. I am wondering whether the noble Lord is saying that the power to imprison should be retained simply to allow jury trial. As the noble Lord said, it may well be that this is a longstanding principle in this country; but Parliament makes the laws and Parliament, surely, has the right to change them. I concede it is a matter for your Lordships as to whether or not we should pursue this matter. But the right to claim trial by jury exists only in a certain number of cases. It is not open to every person in every type of offence, albeit a criminal offence. Because it is to be found in some areas and not in others, I do not think one can argue that this is a longstanding principle which has got to be maintained. It is a matter for Parliament.
In the last analysis, what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is saying, at least by implication, is that trial in a magistrate's court leaves something to be desired, and that trial in the Crown Court, before a judge and jury, is to be preferred. I would hope he is not implying that, because in the last analysis people have a right of appeal in a magistrates' court, and many of them do appeal. But I should not have thought that this should hang on the question of the right of a person to trial by jury. I believe this to be a matter on which Parliament must decide, as it has decided in the past, to change the law. This might seem to be an opportunity when a change is desirable.
LORD AIREDALE: On the question as to whether a trial in the superior court is more desirable, does it not occur to the Minister that when there is a jury trial in the High Court, there is a tran
874
script of the whole of the proceedings? Every word which is uttered by the experienced judge to the jury before they arrive at their verdict appears in the transcript. If the judge makes a mistake there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal, who can scrutinise every word that the learned judge addressed to the jury before that jury arrived at their decision. This gives enormous protection to people who may possibly have been wrongly convicted in a jury trial.
Compare that with the position of the Divisional Court of the High Court trying to do justice on appeal from a decision in a magistrates' court. Here there exists no such transcript of what took place in the magistrates' court. Of course, the magistrates do their best to provide notes for the High Court to arrive at a just decision on appeal; but there is no comparison at all between that and the careful scrutiny of a transcript by the Court of Appeal of every word that was said in the trial before someone was convicted by a jury.
LORD FOOT: I am grateful to my noble friend for coming to my aid in this. I should like just to add to what he has said about comparison between trial before the magistrates and a trial in the High Court before judge and jury. I would add only that if one is tried by magistrates and has no right to go to a jury, and one is compelled to be tried by the magistrates for an offence of dishonesty, one can be convicted on a majority of two to one. I would ask the noble Lord this question. Supposing a son of his were accused of a crime of dishonesty, making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining an insurance certificate, would the noble Lord be content to allow that matter to be decided by a magistrates' court? Would he be content to deprive his son of the right of trial by his peers, trial by jury? If the noble Lord would be content, well, so be it. But I wonder how many Members of the House would be content to allow a matter of that kind (which might wreck the career of a young man or woman) to be decided perhaps by a majority of three magistrates, with no right of appeal at all to a jury.
I suggest that these are serious matters. My only concern is to make sure that this Committee understands what it is doing, and what it is being invited to do. This

875
Committee is being invited to draw a clear distinction between dishonesty in relation to some road traffic offence, and dishonesty in relation to any other kind of offence. In most other kinds of dishonesty there will remain the right to be tried by jury, because there will remain a power for the magistrates to impose a penalty of more than three months' imprisonment. But under this clause, we are saying that false statements, telling lies, if they have some sort of traffic connotation, are going to deprive the accused person of the right to trial by jury. On what possible grounds can this sort of anomaly be defended? I am not going to try to carry this to a Division, but I cannot feel satisfied that I have received any sort of answer from the Front Bench. If I could get even a hint that the Government will be prepared to look at this matter again before the next stage, I should be happy to leave it there, but it is surely quite inadequate that the matter should be left as it stands at present.
LORD HACKING: May I intervene briefly, because the noble Lord, Lord Foot, drew the attention of the Government Front Bench to the James Committee, and I have not heard the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, answer that point in the course of this discussion. This is a matter that I raised on Second Reading. I read out the precise terms of reference, and made the point that this clause was interfering with a Committee set up by the previous Government, and kept in being by this Government. In my submission, this is a matter that should be of concern to your Lordships. It is also a matter of added concern to me because, as from last Tuesday, I have a certain interest in Government Committees on certain aspects of road traffic law.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was not present when I referred to the James Committee. My recollection is that I said the James Committee is not concerned with statutory penalties. Although it is part of the purpose of the Bill to relieve the Crown Court of the burden of straightforward road traffic cases which in many instances come to it as a result of the right of the defendant to elect for jury trial, the Government's principal motive in including
876
the penalty provision in the Bill is one of penal policy; but we do not know at this stage what the findings of the James Committee will be. As I have said, that Committee is not solely concerned with statutory penalties.
I do not know that I am going to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Foot. As I tried to point out, the purpose of the Government in opposing what is before us, and in opposing Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23, is to some extent to relieve the congestion in the Crown Court, and also to deal with those matters which it is felt can be done adequately in the magistrates' court.
I want to say at this stage that I take the noble Lord's point with regard to conviction by a two to one Bench, as against a jury, but the noble Lord will not want me to tell him that anybody who is convicted in the magistrates' court has a right of appeal, and many of them exercise that right of appeal.
LORD FOOT: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but he knows as well as I do that while you can of course appeal against a magistrates' court decision, you can never get before a jury unless you have gone to the Crown Court on committal in the first place. The only person you can appeal to is the judge in the Crown Court.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: This is perfectly true, but perhaps the noble Lord attaches far more importance to the matter of trial by jury than do some other people. I do not know that we are going to resolve this satisfactorily this evening. The Government feel very strongly about this position, as did the previous Government. In the circumstances, all I can say is that by all means we will look at this matter again, but it would be wrong of me to hold out any hope that there is likely to be any change in this matter. I think it is only fair for me to say that this has been looked at carefully by the previous Government and it has been looked at carefully by the present Government, and there is an almost complete identity of view so far as the two bodies are concerned on this matter. But I should like to read at leisure what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and others have said and see whether there is anything we can do. This is all I can say at this stage.
LORD SHINWELL: I know nothing about legal matters and this is largely a legal dialogue, or to a large extent it is. I appreciate the difficulty in which my noble friends are placed because we have nobody on the Front Bench, so far as I am aware, who is acquainted with every aspect of legal questions that arise. I have observed in the past, when legal questions are raised, that usually on the Opposition Bench there is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, an ex-Lord Chancellor, an expert on the law, and various other legal luminaries. But on our side nobody appears. I wonder whether in considering what ought to be done—my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has suggested, quite rightly, that the matter will be looked at—it would be possible, before the matter comes before your Lordships' House again, to have somebody available representing Her Majesty's Government who is fully appraised of all these legal subtleties in order to assist people like myself.
LORD FOOT: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for that intervention, and I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for what he has said. I recognise that he cannot go further at this stage, and I should like to put it on Record that he was answering what I had to say without any previous notice that I was to speak on this subject. I recognise the difficulty in which he finds himself. If it would assist the noble Lord, I would be quite happy, before the next stage, to put down an appropriate Amendment so that the Government will have full notice. It is difficult to devise an Amendment, because I am in sympathy generally with the wish of the Government to remove the penalty of imprisonment for road traffic offences. I would take it away from the Crown Court, too, for most traffic offences. Indeed I would not make careless driving an offence at all, but that is another matter.
I am, therefore, in sympathy with the desire of the Home Secretary and his predecessor to stop sending people to prison unnecessarily, and I can think of no field where people are sent more unnecessarily to prison than in the field of road traffic offences. But having said that, I think that taking away this
878
power of imprisonment from the magistrates, with the consequences which flow from it which I have attempted to describe, makes it almost impossible to put down an Amendment to the Bill which will accomplish the two purposes, the purpose the Government have in mind of preventing magistrates sending people to prison, and the purpose I have in mind, which is to defend the right of the individual charged with an offence of dishonesty to be tried by jury. I will try to do it between now and the next stage, in order that the matter can be further discussed.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I can see close to him two, if not three, other members of the Bar, and it should not be beyond the ability of noble Lords there to put down an appropriate Amendment. So far as the Government are concerned, we realise that certain noble Lords feel strongly about this matter. We would be glad to have all the help we can get in this matter. If it can be dealt with by an Amendment or Amendments, I hope noble Lords will put them down. If not, perhaps there can be some other form of communication before the next stage.
On Question, Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interpretation]
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, which is consequential on my Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was good enough to accept. I hope he will be able to accept this one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) In sections (Certain small vehicles not to he public service vehicles) and (Modifications of provisions relating to permits for certain bus services) above expressions used to which meanings are assigned by subsection (I) of section 257 of the 1960 Act have in those sections the meanings assigned to them by that subsection.").—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD GARNSWORTHY: As I was pleased not to oppose the earlier Amendments, I would not wish to oppose this one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Variation of penalties for certain offences]:
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 50, line 20, leave out lines 20 to 22.
The noble Baroness said: In the unavoidable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, I beg leave to move these Amendments. I am well aware that the Government may not treat them in the same conciliatory way that they have treated other Amendments moved by my noble friends this afternoon. These Amendments to Schedule 5 are aimed to retain the power of the magistrates to imprison an offender for driving while unfit through drink and drugs, tampering with a motor vehicle, failing to stop after an accident (hit and run), or dangerous driving. The only offence for which an offender will be able to receive a term of imprisonment from the magistrates' court is that of driving while disqualified. I hope that the Government realise—we have been over this ground so often before—that no magistrate wants to send an offender to prison. In fact, in regard to the offences in Clause 19 and Schedule 5 it is very rare indeed for a defendant to be imprisoned.
In 1972—the noble Lord gave these figures earlier but in a different way, so perhaps he will excuse me—for dangerous and reckless driving there were 6,241 convictions, from which only 36 people were sent to prison. For driving in the same period with an excess of drink or drugs, there were 43,836 convictions out of which only 317 were sent to prison. But my colleagues on the Bench feel that the powers of imprisonment should be retained as a deterrent. If you take away from the magistrates the power to send people to prison, an accused person will not have the right to elect to trial by jury.
Here I must say how very grateful I was for the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. An accused person will have to be tried by a magistrates' court. If the power to imprison is removed, then borstal training, detention order centres,
880
the return to borstal after conviction, attendance centre orders, hospital and guardianship orders, restriction orders, community service orders, remands for medical reports, and even—as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said—the power to issue a warrant to secure an offender's presence after conviction will not be able to be used by the magistrates, and everything will be left to fines. Fines are not suitable in a large number of cases. The very young offender who is earning a small amount of money, but who as we all know on the benches, is liable to kick over the traces and quickly tot up a lot of these very serious convictions, cannot pay an adequate fine. No court would impose one. In our view, a short, sharp lesson may often be the only way to make them realise that laws are meant to be obeyed.
I realise that everyone—and that includes magistrates—wants to reduce the prison population. We also want to reduce the number of people appearing before the Crown Courts. From the figures I gave earlier, it will be seen that road traffic offenders in 1972 formed only a tiny percentage of the prison population. Those of us who are entrusted with the administration of justice and the magistrates' clerks who advise us, think it is wrong that Governments—and, I have to concede, both Governments—should tie our hands and make the work of the courts even more difficult than it is already. At the end of last year when we had this Road Traffic Bill, I made a lot of speeches on many aspects and I do not want at this late hour to delay your Lordships or to weary you. I do not think I shall add anything further. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has already indicated that the Government are not prepared to accede to these Amendments. Despite that, I beg to move this Amendment.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: There is not a great deal that I can say in relation to what the noble Baroness has said that I have not said earlier to-day. I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness is on a very different point from the noble Lord, Lord Foot. As I tried to explain earlier to-day, both sides—the last Government and this Government—have gone into this matter very carefully and (it must be a very unusual situation) find themselves in complete

881
agreement. Along with the Party to which the noble Baroness belongs, we feel it is wrong to have a custodial sentence for motoring offences. We feel quite strongly that this problem can be dealt with in another way.
LORD HACKING: May I intervene here? The noble Lord said that as a matter of policy it is wrong to have custodial sentences for motoring offences. Will he bring into his mind the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, which has the addage to dangerous driving only that the victim, instead of being grievously injured, shall I say, is killed.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I pointed out that in a matter of that kind the prosecution can determine whether the case should go to the Crown Court.
LORD HACKING: There is no option here. The matter is obligatory. It is an indictable offence. It has to be taken to the Crown Court and the penalty is five years' imprisonment, if my memory serves me aright.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: That being the case, I do not understand why the noble Lord made the point. I was referring to those cases which come before the magistrates' court, and what I am saying is that those cases will be dealt with in the magistrates' court, unless the prosecution has reason to believe that the nature of the offence—or unless there are some other reasons which I need not go into, but which will be apparent to your Lordships—is such that the matter should be referred to the Crown Court, where the penalties can be far greater. With that very good exception, which I mentioned earlier, and which does not include driving while disqualified, the Government feel it desirable to deal with motoring offences either by fine or by some form of supervision in the case of those under the age of 21.
With respect, I do not feel that I can add much to what I have already said. We have gone into this matter very carefully. I do not think that this is on a par with the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, because it is something quite different. I think it is desirable that the matter should be dealt with in this way, quite apart from relieving what is a considerable and growing congestion in the Crown Courts.
LORD FOOT: May I add one or two words to the argument? The Amendment with which we are dealing at the moment is to strike out lines 20 to 22 from page 50 of Schedule 5. In other words, it is to leave with the magistrates power to send somebody to prison for three months or to fine him £50, if a person is convicted of failing to stop after an accident and of failing to give particulars or to report an accident. That is what we are talking about at the moment. I can understand the Government's saying, "We are, as a matter of general principle, in favour of cutting down the number of custodial sentences which are passed upon people, and we think it is very appropriate to do this in the field of road traffic." I go along with that all the way. But the Government are entirely illogical about this, because what they are proposing to do is not to cut down the overall power in serious cases for the courts to send people to prison for these offences; they are merely intending to deprive the magistrates of the power to do it and, as the noble Lord has explained, in all cases which are regarded as of any seriousness by the prosecution what they can do is commit to the Crown Court. But the Government have no proposals for reducing the penalties that can be imposed in the Crown Court for these offences. They are wanting to maintain all the existing penalties in the Crown Court. This is wholly inconsistent with their general conception that we should try to stop sending people to prison, or stop sending them to prison for as long as we do, because we will then leave the Crown Court to go on doing exactly what it has been doing in the past.
When it comes to the question of relieving the Crown Court of the burden of work by depriving people of the right to be tried by a jury and to claim trial before the Crown Court, of course the opposite argument applies, that you are in fact likely actually to increase the amount of work thrown on the Crown Court because wherever you have a case where either the magistrate or the prosecutor think that a fine will not do they are left with nothing but to order that the case shall be committed for trial and it will go to the Crown Court. As a result you will have many cases going to the Crown Court which, under the present legislation, would be dealt with

883
by the magistrates, because they would regard their powers as adequate. It is pure guesswork as to whether this provision will relieve the Crown Court or whether it will add to its work. My guess, along with that of the noble Baroness, may be just as good as the Government's guess.
There is no principle in this. I am not in favour of the magistrates retaining power to imprison for road traffic offences, but that is another matter. There is no principle involved. It is no good the Government pretending that they are acting on high principle, because if they were and they wanted to cut down the number of people in prison what they would be coming forward with in the Bill would be a general proposal for the reduction of penalties for road traffic offences right across the board, magistrates and Crown Court, too. Until the Government are prepared to take that attitude then they are making no contribution to penal reform.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to support the noble Baroness in the Amendment. I feel the difference between our attitude to property and to people creates a curious anomaly. This morning before the particular court where I sit as a magistrate there appeared a large number of shoplifters and, as your Lordships will know, such offenders are presented with the proposition that they can elect to be tried by a higher court, although the magistrates still retain powers of imprisonment. So far as I know there has never been any suggestion that these powers should be removed from the magistrates; yet the particular offence we are discussing, which may well involve death or accident to an individual, is to be taken away from the magistrates.
There are certain areas where one could go right throughout the whole structure of various kinds of criminal justice and could find these different kinds of anomaly. I think there is still prevailing a feeling that failing to stop and report an accident is not very serious. At the risk of wearying your Lordships I would instance a case in which I personally was involved, where a car appeared out of the night and practically broke in half the car which I had just left outside my own home. One of my friends standing by it
884
was injured and the car was damaged to such an extent that it had to be replaced totally. The driver involved disappeared into the night and we did not see him again; so far as I know he has never been found. But that was a clear case concerning either a drunken driver or a stolen car. It was a hit-and-run driver, who in my judgment commits a serious crime. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this matter.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
6.55 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 64, line 10, after ("specified") insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, with Amendment No. 25, is to correct drafting defects in the Bill. I think there may he no need to take up your Lordships' time because what we want to do is to correct an error which we have recognised. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 25.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 12, leave out from ("it") to end of line 13 and insert ("and, subject to such exceptions as may be so specified or determined").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 65, line 31, at end insert—
("13A.—(1) In section 161 of that Act (power of constables to require production of driving licences and statement of date of birth) at the end of subsection (4) (no offence committed if licence produced at a police station within five days) there shall be added the words "in respect of a failure to produce his licence."
(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall affect the operation of the said subsection (4) in relation to a requirement made by a constable before that sub-paragraph comes into operation.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment corrects another defect in Section 161 of the Act of 1972 relating to the power of constables to require the production of driving licences and in certain

885
cases a statement of date of birth. Subsection (4) makes it an offence to fail to comply with a lawful request to produce a driving licence or to state date of birth and enables the person to discharge such an offence by producing his driving licence at a nominated police station within five days. It is not appropriate that the offence of failing to state date of birth should be capable of being discharged in this way. In any case, production of the driving licence does not necessarily disclose the date of birth. The Amendment would enable an offence of failing to produce a driving licence, but not an offence of failing to make a statement of date of birth, to be discharged by the production of a driving licence at a nominated police station within five days. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 65, line 37, at end insert—
("14A. In section 179 of that Act (restrictions on prosecutions for certain offences) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(3A) The requirement of subsection (2) above shall not apply in relation to an offence it, at the time of the offence or immediately thereafter, an accident occurs owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed."")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 27. There has been a very long-standing provision, which is unique to road traffic law, to the effect that the police must serve a notice of intended prosecution within a fortnight of the commission of certain listed offences unless the defendant has been warned at the time or receives a summons within 14 days. The reason for this provision was that in some cases a traffic offence may be witnessed, perhaps far from the defendant's home and in circumstances which he has no cause to remember; for instance, he may speed through a village ignoring the 30 m.p.h. limit and he may not have stopped at the time. Generally this procedure has served as a safeguard for the driver, giving him a chance to refresh his memory and to seek his own witnesses, but in the case of multiple accidents, like the motorway pileups, the police investigations may take over a fortnight and, meanwhile, they have to preserve the right to prose
886
cute by serving notices on all who were involved. This procedure has caused distress to many who have been injured through no fault of their own. Following consultation with interested bodies, the Government have decided that it would not be generally acceptable to abolish notices of intended prosecution, but that it is reasonable to provide they are not necessary in the case of a driver who has been involved in an accident, since he has good reason to remember the circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

THREATS OF VIOLENCE: GOVERNMENT POLICY
7.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT NORWICHrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the making of an official declaration at the highest level to the effect that they will never, as a point of principle, negotiate with kidnappers, hijackers, or other blackmailers who use the threat of violence for political or financial ends. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at this rather late hour I do not think it is worth while taking up your Lordships' time with a long and unedifying list of the various acts of terrorism—hijacking and kidnapping, art thefts for political ends and various forms of moral blackmail—of the kind I had in mind when I framed my Question. Ten years ago—it is almost unbelievable to think of it—we hardly knew what an aircraft hijacking was. Now we are hearing of new cases virtually every week. The list is increasing rapidly, rather like a geometrical progression. Why is it? What has happened to make this new and peculiarly loathsome form of terrorism and violence assume such dramatic, indeed epidemic, proportions?
My Lords, there are obviously several reasons, but I believe that among the main ones is the fact that it has been seen that far too often this particular technique has proved successful: from those very early days when, for example,

887
the Government yielded to the threats of hijackers who had landed a large British airliner in the Middle East, and freed the hijacker of another aeroplane, Leila Khaled, to that appalling incident only last week when, in order to try to ensure that there should be no untoward incidents during the World Cup, the Germans let out two particularly loathsome specimens of the terrorist breed without there even having been a threat at the time. I think, therefore, that if we are going to worry about how to stop this ghastly escalation of violence, the first thing that we must understand is that we shall never be able to stop it so long as there is any belief that it works. If we are going to stop it, we have got to show that, whatever has happened in the past, at least in the future, and in this country, it is not going to work: that we shall have no truck of any kind with people of this sort.
Now it is not enough, my Lords, in my submission, simply to say that we will wait until the next incident occurs and that we shall then take a firm line. If we wait, first of all we shall find ourselves in a far weaker position than we are in now, when we do not in fact at this moment happen to have, figuratively speaking, a terrorist gun sticking into our ribs. Also, of course, it will simply mean that one more person or one more very large group of persons will be inconvenienced, jeopardised and, at best, terrorised out of their wits. How much better it would be if we were to anticipate the situation and act now to do all we can—we cannot do everything, but we can do something—to try to ensure that this does not continue as it has done.
The way I am suggesting doing it, the way I should like to see it done, would be, as I say, by the drafting and promulgation of an official declaration to say that we would in no possible circumstances at any time or anywhere have any dealings with terrorists or people trying to blackmail us morally. We would promulgate this declaration with all the formality and with all the publicity that we could command in the highest possible forum—that of the United Nations. By doing it at this level, we should make it absolutely plain that we were serious about this, that we meant
888
what we said, because it would be plain to the world that, having made a declaration of this kind, we could not immediately go back on it the first time it was challenged. This would prove our own good faith and would make it very much easier for us to take a strong line when we needed to do so. We should draft it in a form which would not only be totally categorical but which would also enable other nations to adhere to it, so that ultimately one might have a sort of charter to which many nations would have subscribed.
My Lords, if we were to do this, what would the reactions be? The first reaction, at the lowest, would be that somewhere a blow would have been struck, and someone would have said in the strongest possible terms that they did not propose to be pushed around any longer. That is at the lowest, at the worst; but there is more to it than that. I believe that if we were to do this, and if we were to prove that we meant it, quite soon prospective terrorists would see that we meant business and, when they wished to plot another hijacking or kidnapping, or whatever it might be, would turn their attention in some other direction, towards some other, more craven nation which had not had the guts to nail its colours to the mast in the way we had. This, in turn, I like to think, might encourage other nations to do what we had done, and so gradually one might build up a collection of nations all of whom were prepared to take a firm, collective stand.
Now what are the objections? There is obviously one considerable objection. I do not believe that in fact it holds water, but I see its very considerable strength. People will say, "That is all very well, but suppose you have an airliner hijacked on the ground with 150 or 250 innocent women and children in it. Are you really going to allow them to go up in smoke?" My Lords, I agree that this is an absolutely nightmarish and appalling decision, and I am deeply grateful to think that I shall never be in a position of having to take it; but in fact this is an over-simplification. First of all, experience tells us that when a firm line is taken such innocent hostages very seldom, if ever, indeed, get shot or liquidated. Secondly, we should remember that it is not as simple as that; that it is

889
not just this plane-load which is being jeopardised. It is countless other planeloads in the future; because there is one thing of which we can be utterly certain; that is, that the moment we make it clear that this sort of technique works, that we give in, then the next plane-load of schoolchildren, and the next and the next, will inevitably be in far greater danger than they would have been, and rather than hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of lives will be jeopardised.
The same goes, obviously, for kidnappings. In the last couple of years we have had three cases of British diplomats in South America being kidnapped. In those three cases we have, for one reason or another, not given in to threats. Nevertheless, the temptations and the pressures have clearly been very high. But if we were to ransom an Ambassador of ours, which we should obviously very much like to do, we should in fact be putting all the rest of our Foreign Service at far greater risk. We should be proving to terrorists that they can get away with it by doing this sort of thing. Is this really wise? Similarly, if, in this country, the Ambassador of a friendly, allied Power were to be kidnapped, when we would in fact be under an even greater moral obligation to ransom him in some way or another—after all, he would have diplomatic privileges and be a guest in our country—should we do so we should have to ransom every other foreign diplomat in this country who would very probably get kidnapped as a result of our having given in the first time.
My Lords, I am not so arrogant as to believe that any terrorist is going to dream that he is ever going to get very much for kidnapping me, but in case I ever were kidnapped I should like to make my own little statement now that I hope very much that nobody will ever give a penny for my safety, or to get me back. There is only one other objection that I can see. People will feel—indeed, one or two people have mentioned it to me already—that it is going too far to say that we will never give in to this sort of thing. Let us instead say that we will not give in, they say. in my submission, I do not think a declaration of that sort would be worth the paper it was printed on. When, indeed, is it ever a good thing, when is it ever right, to give in to moral blackmail
890
of this kind? I believe it is never right, and I should like this country and this Government to go on record as saying so as fully, as categorically and as soon as possible.
7.10 p.m.
EARL CATHCART: My Lords, I rise with great diffidence to address your Lordships for the first time. Although I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for many years, I have not felt able to take part until I retired from the Army last October. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, for enabling me to speak on this subject to-day because it is urgent that we continually review what our correct reaction should be if ever there was a serious hijacking incident in this country, and that we should try to develop a better range of options than exists at present. The Tokyo and Hague Conventions provide a satisfactory and progressive framework in the international field, but unfortunately they have been ratified only by a proportion of nations.
Our own Hijacking Bill provides the necessary legislation for the punishment and extradition of the hijackers once they are caught. But the Government of the day, at this moment, have very few and rather unsatisfactory courses available to them while a hijacking incident is actually in progress. Any negotiation with those ruthless enough to use hijacking as an act of political pressure, can be conducted only from a position of weakness. To yield to any part of their demands merely enhances the future prospects of hijacking and invites further repetition. On the other hand, any offensive action by Security Forces on the tarmac is equally unsatisfactory.
Sometime before I retired, I was involved in making plans to co-ordinate military and police action in the event of an aircraft being hijacked. Perhaps I should add that it was not in this country. That experience made me realise what little positive action is available to Security Forces in trying to release the hijacked passengers alive and safe. The sniper's bullet was perhaps the only weapon of retaliation that we had, and that is not entirely satisfactory. However great the skill of the marksman and the development and improvement of telescopic sights and so forth, there is always the grave risk that innocent passengers

891
may also be hit. Furthermore, it is a long process, and once two or three hijackers have been picked off, the remaining hijackers, realising that their turn is coming soon, may take desperate action and blow up the aircraft, thus defeating the whole operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has on several occasions in your Lordships' House referred to gas or a device which would temporarily and harmlessly render unconscious everybody in or near the aircraft—both passengers and hijackers alike—whereupon the police could arrest the hijackers and release the passengers none the worse for wear, we hope, when they regained consciousness. But, alas, even this is not entirely satisfactory unless unconsciousness came to everybody on board in an instant; otherwise again the hijacker, feeling unconsciousness coming over him or seeing others nearby falling unconscious, would realise what is happening and take some desperate action. But perhaps the hope that we can one day have a weapon which provides instant oblivion may be asking too much as it sounds rather like science fiction.
Since neither negotiation nor tarmac action is satisfactory, one is driven to considering the only remaining course; that of declaring that there will be no negotiation, thus automatically condemning the hijacked passengers to the mercies of their hijackers. The West German public, when hosts at the Olympic Games, were quite unprepared for the tragic situation which confronted them at Munich in 19/2. I do not thinkthat we in this country are any better prepared to face a situation of an airliner with perhaps 200 passengers held at gunpoint on the tarmac of a British airport while their fanatical captors demand from the Government of the day their political requirements. I doubt whether many members of the British public would be prepared to see those passengers condemned; they would expect some positive action to be taken.
Of course a declared policy of no negotiation would not be very good sales talk for our airlines. I can see a situation in which the discerning traveller would choose to fly on certain routes with those airlines whose national policy did not condemn them outright in the event of
892
the aircraft being seized. Whatever course we adopt, the best way to reduce the number of hijacking incidents is undoubtedly good security at the airports. Any passenger who complains of the inconvenience of searches and checks, and demands their curtailment, must accept full responsibility for any increase in the number of hijacking incidents.
However, even good security is not the complete answer because however vigilant we are in this country we may not have the same safeguards in aircraft landing at our airports from elsewhere. The last Government and the present Government have tried and continue to try to get hijackers outlawed and also to have sanctions brought against nations who harbour and train hijackers. This is by far and away the best practical counter to hijacking. I hope that this short and valuable debate will bring about a realisation of exactly how inadequate our options are at the moment and that it will restore us to renewed and vigorous efforts to try to achieve general international agreement to this civilised policy. If we cannot get full agreement from all nations, the time has now come when we should get together with those nations who do agree with us, apply sanctions ourselves and take a lead in positively outlawing hijacking once and for all. If we cannot achieve this by diplomatic means, we must leave it to the pilots' and aircrews' association to show us the way.
It is easier to discuss hijacking in the context of the unlawful seizure of aircraft because it is so clearly defined and we have had so many experiences to call on. Also, our legislation against hijacking has been exclusively involved with aircraft. However, as we have so recently seen, hijacking can take many different forms, and this Question which we are debating to-day specifically refers to hijacking in general and not specifically to the hijacking of aircraft. I hope that as "hijacking" is a new word in our legal vocabulary, it will in all future relevant legislation, be included to cover all forms of hijacking, whether of individuals, or of groups of people, and whether in aircraft or in any other situation. I hope also that it will be liable, in whatever form it takes, to the toughest measures against the individuals concerned, once they are caught. I am most

893
grateful to your Lordships for listening to me to-day.
7.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, my first and very pleasant duty is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cathcart on what he has just said. Many of us have seen him sitting patiently on the Cross-Benches while he increased in military rank to a very high level indeed, and wondered at the patience with which he refrained from taking part in your Lordships' debates. Now at last the opportunity is his and he has chosen an occasion not only to make a very interesting and useful speech but, I am afraid, to pre-empt most of the things that I wanted to say. So I cannot altogether thank him though he has taken exactly the line that I would have hoped, because he has dwelt upon the twin issues of applied psychology and practical preparedness which are the pair that you need to deal with this situation.
I am fairly certain that the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, is right to urge us not to wait until an incident puts us to the test, but in the end I suspect that our deeds are going to be more effective than our words and I merely hope that successive Governments in this country have not gained a reputation for easily giving in or being likely to do so. I do not want to inject a sour note into this debate but I want to say one thing: we are up against a fairly major challenge to law and order both national and international. I agree with the noble Viscount that there is a novelty of scale, variety and sophistication. But I do not underestimate the seriousness of certain recent incidents at home in this country. I shall not start talking about Clay Cross or defiance of the Industrial Relations Court, because these problems are part of a saga which is still unfolding. I would much rather keep Party politics out of this and, if I can, apply my mind to presenting a united front to the rest of the world in the face of international barbarity.
But I must say one word of warning to the Government. A Government which cannot stand up to defiance and the flouting of domestic laws within its own boundaries by its own citizens may find its credibility called increasingly into question; first, abroad, by those who think of choosing the United Kingdom as
894
the scene for one of their atrocities; and, secondly, at home, by sensible public opinion, which any Government must carry with it if it is to be firm in the fight against international terrorism. If we are to enjoy the sort of steadiness which I noticed yesterday when a bomb went off in the precincts of this Palace, and the sort of steadiness which we also enjoyed during the last War, I do not think we can take this for granted. It has to be fostered by continuing sound leadership and example. This must be very strictly borne in mind.
The problem has already been set out by previous speakers. Whether it comes from the international Left-wing revolutionary or from one of the protagonists of the Middle East, or a mixture of the two, which seems to be the commonest form at the moment, some horror may be brought about within our jurisdiction—and, indeed, it is daily, by the I.R.A. and the extremists on the other side—and when the perpetrators are caught and imprisoned one is faced with a new outrage planned to secure their release. What do we do about it? Since the campaigns are largely international—and my noble friend Lord Cathcart has pointed out the lack of an international police force to look after them—suitable targets can be found in any country. I have no doubt the noble Viscount is right in saying that the stage for the savagery is likely to be set in the country where guerrillas think they can get away with it. Once you give in, you cause a repetition over and over again of the sickening and brutish crimes being committed here or in our ships or aircraft. This is what we must guard against.
I shall listen with interest to what the Government have to say, but I hope I may be brutally blunt for a moment. There will be some people in this country whose heads are, if anything, even softer than their hearts and who will bleat in favour of instant surrender. There are also others, I believe, who will say that they cannot see why citizens of the United Kingdom should be endangered because of a stand on principle by their Government related to the existence of some crisis in the Middle East or the doctrines of Castro or Guevara. I would simply say that if they think that, then their soft and insular heads are even further in the sand than I thought. I

895
would ask such people whether they really consider that this problem is one which has no bearing on our way of life in this country.
After all, people from all over the world have for centuries come to Britain, because they find here a freedom and tolerance which they cannot find in other countries overseas. Do those who would give in think that this freedom and tolerance has come about just by chance? History shows that it has not. It derives from battles here and overseas in which a great deal of blood has been spilled. It will be defended now against new and perhaps more insidious attacks only by equal resolution and, I am sorry to say, probably by the spilling of yet more blood. We cannot afford to be squeamish and lukewarm in our reactions to this sort of thing. I hope that the Government and the noble Lord. Lord Harris, will make it perfectly clear that if ever they have to act they will be neither lukewarm nor squeamish, but are determined to continue with the resolution that we know we must show in the face of this sort of danger.
7.25 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, I should like to begin by agreeing on one point at least, and indeed on many others, made by the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat; that is, in warmly congratulating the noble Earl on his maiden speech. I made my own maiden speech sufficiently recently to know what a tiresome business it is, and on behalf of noble Lords on both sides of your Lordships' House I should like to say how much we appreciated what the noble Earl said. I can say that particularly easily because I found myself in almost total agreement with his remarks.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said he would do his very best not to he controversial. I welcomed that assurance. He hovered on the brink of making a point about the Clay Cross councillors, and then decided against it—because I am sure that, on reflection, he would agree that the prospect of the sort of terrorists we have been discussing this evening, meeting in some conceivably Middle-Eastern capital and discussing what a group of urban district councillors
896
have been doing in Derbyshire, is a little far from reality. Apart from that point, over which the noble Viscount hovered, I found myself in very substantial agreement with what he said.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, who introduced this debate this evening. The issue that he raised is indeed of the deepest concern to us all. Violence, or the threat of it, in pursuance of political ends has become a frighteningly familiar feature of the modern world and, as he said, in terms of hijacking and the other episodes which he catalogued, it is a relatively recent arrival, certainly in the dimensions of this problem.
We in the United Kingdom have seen terrorism break out within our own country and Northern Ireland and over the last few years our interests both here and abroad have been the targets of other brands of terrorism. In the North and South of the American continent our diplomats have been kidnapped. As recently as three months ago a British airliner was hijacked by Arab terrorists. Other countries have also suffered grievously. There have, for instance, been the vicious attacks on airline passengers at the Lod, Athens and Rome airports and the tragedy at the Olympic Games which was alluded to earlier.
There is no need for me to catalogue all the murderous acts of violence that have been committed in the name of various political ideals to prove the seriousness of the threat that has been the subject of this debate this evening. Nor, I fear, is there any sign of its abating. All balanced people abhor the use of indiscriminate violence for political ends. Only the twisted idealism or, in many cases, the mental imbalance of fanatics can lead people to think otherwise. As the United Nations Secretariat concluded in a study published in November, 1972:
"… there are some means of using force, in every form of human conflict, which must not be used, even when the use of force is legally and morally justified, and regardless of the status of the perpetrator."
Like our predecessors, this Government are determined to take firm action to meet the threat of terrorism wherever it may arise. We intend to do all that is reasonably practicable to this end. In recent years our defences have been built

897
up considerably. Of course—and I fear this is inevitable—many of these precautions depend upon secrecy for their efficiency. It only helps the terrorist to discuss them openly; but it may be worth reminding the House of some of those which we can in fact discuss this evening.
In the aviation context, comprehensive security measures are now in force. The Government have taken steps to ensure that all airlines, British and foreign, search passengers and hand-baggage on international scheduled flights at United Kingdom airports. Security surveys have been made at all our international airports. British airlines, with the support of our embassies abroad, are constantly seeking to ensure adequate security for their operations at foreign airports. The Protection of Aircraft Act, passed last year, enables the Government to give aviation authorities directions on the security measures they should take if they fail to do voluntarily all that the Government consider necessary.
In general, it falls primarily to the police to take action against the threat of terrorism. Good intelligence and careful contingency planning are of the essence. The police co-operate closely with other services, such as the Immigration Service, in this country and with their counterparts in oilier countries. Those concerned have some notable successes to their credit, both in catching people who have committed terrorist outrages and in forestalling would-be terrorists. A number of unwelcome visitors have, for example, been detected at air and sea ports before they could get into this country. When terrorists present a threat which the resources of the police are inadequate to deal with, military assistance is available. It is distasteful both to the Government and to the military authorities that the Armed Forces should become involved in maintaining civil peace. But when terrorists are themselves armed with sophisticated military weapons, it is clearly necessary that the Government should make assistance available to the police and that has been done in the past and will be done in the future.
Clearly, we must take stringent precautions against the threats that face us. Terrorists choose their targets so indiscriminately, however, that an open society
898
like ours is bound to be vulnerable. Tougher measures which might make us less exposed can be imagined. A greater degree of regimentation—identity cards, police powers to stop and search people at random, control over the expression of dissent, records of people's opinions and connections—these and similar measures might increase our protection by a percentage point or two. But they would not guarantee a 100 per cent., security and their introduction would undermine the values of the society we are striving to protect.
Our first aim must be to forestall terrorism. What should we do when we fail and are faced by demands from terrorists? It is clearly wrong to yield to force. If it is seen that force succeeds where legitimate argument fails, concession to one act of violence will breed more. If we yield to those who threaten the lives of hostages or kidnap victims, out of compassion to the innocent sufferers, we place in danger potential victims of future outrages. The noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, invites the Government to announce their determination to follow the path of reason, to commit themselves categorically, as a matter of principle, never to negotiate with kidnappers, hijackers, or other blackmailers. I take it that the noble Viscount does not mean by the wording of his Question that the representations of terrorists should not be received at all. Frankly, it does not seem to me that it matters what Governments say about their attitude to terrorism. What counts is what they do. If, in practice, we show that nothing is to be won by terrorist blackmail we can, I hope, lessen the risk.
This Question covers purely criminal actions as well as terrorism. Since the targets of criminal kidnapping and hostage-taking—offences which, fortunately, have not afflicted this country to the same degree as some others, including, notably, the United States in recent months—are generally wealthy individuals or private institutions, and the object the extraction of money, this Government, or any future Government, may not necessarily be directly involved. The attractions of crimes of this sort depend on the prospects of success. I must emphasise to the noble Viscount that the Government could not prevent those

899
on whom demands were made from yielding if they were so disposed. This is the very essence of the type of crime involved. But in principle the same arguments apply. If the police are able to counter such crimes successfully and those blackmailed do not make payments, such crimes will not seem an attractive proposition.
I turn now to international action against terrorism. This Government share the conviction of their predecessors that terrorism must be countered by effective international co-operation. This takes place at all levels—between the police forces and other agencies who have to work day-to-day to ensure the greatest practical degree of protection against terrorism. Her Majesty's Government have always taken a leading role, both when our predecessors were in office and during the lifetime of this Government, in ensuring international co-operation in this field. We have ratified the two main conventions dealing with aviation security—the Hague Convention on hijacking (dealt with in the Hijacking Act 1971) and the Montreal Convention on sabotage (covered by the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973). Sixty-eight and 51 countries have now ratified these conventions respectively. The Government played an active part in the drafting of the United Nations Convention for the Protection of Diplomats, which was completed at the end of last year. Its ratification is now under consideration.
The United Kingdom delegation to the Extraordinary Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation held in Rome last August—and this matter was touched on in questions in this House a few weeks ago—fought hard, but unfortunately without success to secure the necessary support for measures to apply sanctions to States which harbour hijackers. It was evident at that meeting that the international will for such action does not unfortunately exist at present. But we shall continue to support any constructive proposals at ICAO and we should play a full part in the discussion on aviation security at the meeting to be held in Montreal in September. I hope that what I have said tonight will indicate the seriousness with which the Government are continuing to treat this
900
problem. The issues raised in the debate are constantly before Ministers, and I can assure your Lordships that the present Government will do all in their power to frustrate the demented ideologies which have been responsible for the outrages that have been committed in so many other parts of the world. The Government will not rule out any action, however difficult, so long as it is consistent with our traditions as a civilised democracy.

CROUCH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.
PORT OF TYNE (NORTH SHIELDS FISH HARBOUR) BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
THURROCK DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.