Lords Sitting of 20 December 1979

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans.

SHORTER SPEECHES
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 the Leader of the House whether the speech clocks in the Chamber could display green figures for 5 minutes, yellow for 6 to 10 minutes, red for 11 to 15 minutes, and thereafter flash.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, while I support the Resolution of the House that
"speeches in this House should be shorter"
and agree with the Companion to the Standing Orders that
"long speeches engender tedium and tend to kill debate",
I do not think the House would take kindly to the somewhat inflexible proposal put forward by my noble friend.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, but is he aware that he has just answered my first supplementary? May I therefore ask a second one: if the clocks cannot be altered, has he any other suggestion whereby these long, tedious speeches can be made more brief?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I have not taken technical advice as to whether the noble Earl's proposals would be practicable or whether they would cost too much; but, given the money, I would have thought that perhaps something on those lines could be done. The proposal I have always favoured is that every noble Lord in this House should have, as of right, 15 minutes and at the end of that time a particular speech could be counted out if there were less than 30 Peers present—but perhaps that, too, would be
1790
thought to be too inflexible for this somewhat flexible House!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister: is it not a fact that this is a matter which really ought to be looked at? We are having, and have had for some considerable time, Unstarred Questions which have been longer than some of the short debates. It really is not, and never was, the intention of the House that an Unstarred Question should have so many speakers. I really do feel that we need to look at some of our procedures. I ask the Minister whether he feels this could be done by the appropriate Committee of the House.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is absolutely right. Yesterday, of course, was an example of this, when we had a main debate of the day with, I think, about six or seven speakers, which was followed by an Unstarred Question with a great many more speakers. However, the difficulty is that the Business is put down in whatever form it is put down in, and it is up to those of your Lordships who wish to speak to decide on which occasion you wish to do so. I feel there is very little that could be done about this, but if the noble Lord would like to draw this to the attention of the Procedure Committee, perhaps with any suggestions as to how the position could be alleviated, I am sure that committee would consider it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, does the Minister not think it would be very much better for the Government to do this? The Minister has some idea, as is shown by the answers he has given, of the feeling of the House. Only a few years ago—ten years ago—an Unstarred Question was not limited as such but there were seldom more than six or seven speakers. I think that really, as this is a matter of great concern to the House, it would perhaps come better if the Government Chief Whip drew the attention of the appropriate committee to it.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I will certainly consider that suggestion and possibly discuss it through the usual channels. My own belief is that an individual speech in an Unstarred Question

1791
should be even shorter than the desirable speech for a major debate. But I do not think it is a bad idea sometimes, if speeches are short enough, to have a great many of them. It makes for a very interesting debate. However, I will certainly consider the noble Lord's suggestion.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lords on the temporal side of the House are setting us an example of brevity in song in that they are now launched, I gather, upon a liturgical revision of their hymn book. I understand this will be shorter, more terse and more "Series 3". This may shorten the whole of our debates and so we should be losing some of the longer and lovelier cadences of earlier songs.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I must tell the right reverend Prelate that I am against liturgical revision on principle!
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, in considering this matter further, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would bear in mind that the clocks have a ready ability to tell us how long a noble Lord has actually been speaking but they cannot possibly tell us how long he seems to have been speaking?—which is often a rather more important consideration.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I quite agree that if the noble Earl's suggestion were to be taken up it might be desirable for the clocks to flash a little earlier in some cases than in others.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us who have listened over the years to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, have enjoyed his brilliant ideas?—but that those of us who sit opposite this infernal machine would like to impress upon the House the possibility of Murphy's law, which means:
"It can all go wrong because fools are so blooming well ingenious!"
Therefore I hope that we shall depend on the common sense of speakers: even those of us who are solid from ear to ear know when we are boring the House.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, we have been trying to depend on the common sense of speakers for the last 30 years, to my certain knowledge.
Baroness EMMETT of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask: would it not be quite simple for Unstarred Questions to have a time limit, like the short debates?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think that is an extremely useful suggestion that could well be considered by the Procedure Committee.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, may I, as a matter of law, venture to correct my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek? Murphy's law is:
"If anything can go wrong, it will".
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the time limit procedure does not work altogether in another place? It depends on a fixed time for the rising of the House or a fixed time after the Business of the Government ends: and if the Business of the Government ends before 10 o'clock there is no time limit. Here again, we need some flexibility.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, of course we have our own limited time debates—the balloted ones that we have once a month—and that could well be a precedent for a time limit for an Unstarred Question. But of course the time limit is very much dependent on Peers who speak early in such debates using only the time allotted to them. Otherwise, they take up time that should belong to later speakers.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the wise words of the late Lord Brabazon, that if you cannot say what you want to say in 15 minutes you should go away and write a book about it?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think that your Lordships' Library would be even more overcrowded than it is, if that happened.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: But, my Lords, is not the fact that a number of Members put their names down to a particular Unstarred Question

1793
evidence that the matter raised is one of general importance, on which a large number of Members have views, and surely they should not be suppressed?
Lord DENHAM: No, my Lords. I think it would be very wrong to limit the number of Peers who wish to speak. But I would, as clocks have been mentioned, draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that mine opposite, which is not flashing yet and is still green, shows eight minutes.
Lord DE FREYNE: My Lords, would the noble Lord ever consider an alarm system?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I should be prepared to consider anything if it would make speeches shorter.

AFGHANISTAN: REFUGEES IN PAKISTAN
11.14 a.m.
Lord ALPORT: 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 any help is being provided from British sources for the maintenance of the 250,000 refugees from Afghanistan now in Pakistan.
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords, through our contribution to the general programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Programme, and the United Nations Children's Fund, all of which are helping these refugees. United Kingdom contributions to European Community resources also support the Community's pledges to the United Nations High Commissioner's general programme and the World Food Programme.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government are aware of the serious implications, so far as the stability of Pakistan and that part of Asia is concerned, of this enormous influx of refugees? Would it be in the interests of the United Kingdom that some contribution should be made to
1794
ameliorate the situation there in our own name, rather than through an international fund?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords. I accept what my noble friend has said, and I can say that we are ready to consider very sympathetically any application made to us by the Pakistanis for bilateral aid in this matter—of course, within our resources. But I must say that no such application has so far been received.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I support the plea made by my noble friend Lord Alport, as I was in Pakistan in September and, with my wife, visited Warsak refugee camp close to Peshawar? May I ask my noble friend whether it would be possible for someone from our Embassy to see for himself the conditions there, which might also incite Her Majesty's Government to be more generous than they may already be prepared to be? Also, is my noble friend aware of what Mr. Azmat Hassan said at the United Nations in November this year, to the effect that the provision of food to these refugees had proved a burden on Pakistan's severely limited resources? May I further add that there are now over 310,000 refugees from Afghanistan?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said earlier—that we are ready to consider most sympathetically any application for bilateral aid in this matter, within the limits of our resources, but no such application has yet been received. With regard to the number, I am afraid that both my noble friends are out of date. The number we have now is 350,000.

ZAMBIA: ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
11.17 a.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will offer any assistance to the Government of Zambia to repair the damage inflicted on their railways, roads and communications by the forces of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we have made it clear that we hope to play our part in assisting Zambia to redevelop its economy and infrastructure, which have been severely affected by the Rhodesian conflict.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Would he agree that all British Governments have claimed that they are responsible for the actions of, first, Rhodesia and then Zimbabwe-Rhodesia? Is he further aware that the Chinese, who have no responsibility for the actions of the Rhodesian Government, have already partially repaired the railway bridge on the Tanzam railway; a railway bridge which, I might point out, is nowhere near any of the guerrilla camps in Zambia?
Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords. I would not accept that we had responsibility in this matter. We had no control over the Rhodesian forces at the time of the raids and we do not, I am afraid, accept any responsibility for damage caused by them.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord further point out to Zambia and Mozambique, and various other countries which allow their facilities to be used for invading their neighbours, that they must take the consequences of their own conduct?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are referring to the unhappy, but inevitable, consequences of the conflict in that part of the world. But, as noble Lords know, the cease-fire agreement has now been initialled and will be signed tomorrow, and I do not think we ought to go back over that now.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: But, my Lords, the consequences should not be paid for by our taxpayers.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us are very reassured by the Answer that the Minister has given to this Question?
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, in view of the question of my noble friend Lord Paget, will the noble Lord agree that the country of Zambia, which is a member of the Commonwealth, was asked by the
1796
British Government to assist in suppressing the rebellion in what was then Rhodesia, and that the forces that they have been harbouring, as it is called, were forces that were fighting against the rebels? Is it not strange that Zambia, which is a member of the Commonwealth, should be assisted by China rather than by Britain, and will the noble Lord reaffirm the intention of his Government to give every assistance now to the restoration of Zambian communications?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I prefer not to continue the emotive language which we hear from the noble Lord on these matters. The agreement has now been initialled and it will be signed tomorrow. This is, I should have thought, a major step forward. As for the general question of aid to Zambia, we are willing, as I have said, to help in the general cause of reconstructing their infrastructure, and we hope to have discussions with them shortly.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, is it a fact—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: —that the British Government have asked the Zambian Government to assist them to put down the rebellion in Rhodesia?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think we use those terms, but it is fair to say, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that the Zambians were in the forefront of the difficulties in that part of the world, and we are all delighted that they are now coming to an end.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us on this side of the House are tired of this continual harping on matters which are likely to cause trouble, when such progress has been made?

AIR DEFENCES
11.21 a.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

1797
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what recent improvements have been made in Britain's air defences.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, recent improvements have included the formation of a Rapier squadron for low level air defence at RAF Lossiemouth, the introduction of the new Skyflash air-to-air missile system and the formation of three Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment squadrons for the ground defence of Royal Air Force airfields. A programme of hardened aircraft shelter construction and other passive defences is now under way or in preparation at several major airfields in the United Kingdom. Further substantial improvements are planned for the 1980s, including the introduction of the Tornado F.2 and the Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft, and the comprehensive modernisation of the ground radar chain and the command and control system.
In addition, since taking office earlier this year we have announced several measures which will strengthen our defences in the shorter term. These include the formation of an additional Lightning squadron, the arming of the Hawk aircraft with the Sidewinder air-to-air missile and improvements to the Phantom's missile control system.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that Answer will give considerable satisfaction that a good start has been made in repairing deficiencies? But can he say what would be, in the summer of 1980, in a period of tension, the total number of Royal Air Force fighters available for the defence of the United Kingdom region?
Lord STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, by next summer we shall have 104 fighter aircraft available in a period of tension, and a further 12 will be added to that number in 1982.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if hostilities broke out 104 fighter aircraft could be shot down and destroyed in half an hour?
Lord STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I did not hear the last half of the noble Lord's question, but is he suggesting that this is an inadequate number of aircraft to defend this country?
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, that is so.
Lord STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that we should be satisfied, but we are hopeful that we would get by.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance to the House that no step will be taken which could further delay the modernisation of our ground radar defence network, and that every conceivable step will be taken to bring forward the date by which this will be modern and effective?
Lord STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to an extremely important matter. The improvement programme for the United Kingdom air defence ground environment is a comprehensive modernisation plan for the ground radar chain, for the control centres and for the communications links to support our aircraft. This is a major programme which will be introduced over the next few years, but because of its scope and size it is not easy to speed up this programme significantly. However, we are looking at every possible device which we might use to achieve that objective.

PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the acting Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness White be appointed Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees for the remainder of this Session in the place of the Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, resigned.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Baroness White be appointed Chairman of the European Communities Committee, in the place of the Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, resigned.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution) Bill read 3a, and passed.

SHIPBUILDING BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
11.27 a.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Newall.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I intervene only to confirm that the Government support this Bill. As I explained on Second Reading, the Government would have included these changes in more general legislation on gambling when opportunity permitted. The Report of the Royal Commission on Gambling has not been shelved, but there will not be time this Session for the substantial legislation required. In the meantime, the Government welcome these small changes which they believe will be of assistance to
1800
the greyhound racing industry. We are therefore indebted to my noble friend Lord Newall for introducing the Bill which has its Third Reading today.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for introducing this Bill, although it is only a very small bite at a very large problem. It is a matter of great regret that the Government are not more forthcoming about their plans, and I strongly suspect that they have none. They have used the old, old argument—all Administrations do—about the pressure on time. There is always pressure on time. Therefore, a number of things which ought to be done are not being done, and they do not all depend upon legislation. A great deal could be done by the use of regulation.
I am comforted by the fact that a Treasury Minister is sitting on the Bench. It would be just as well if the Government took note of their very substantial interest here in the rationalisation of the procedures which govern betting and gaming in this country.
May I again remind your Lordships' House—I have said it many times before—that one of the major achievements of the Labour Administration was that in 1964 they tackled this problem of revenue, right across the board, to the order of £40 million. It is now 10 times that sum. But wherever there is easy money, there are people round about ready to take advantage of it. If any advantage has to be taken, I should prefer the public interest to come first.
While I support the Bill and hope very much that it will have an easy passage in another place, I do not think that the Government should be under any illusions about this problem. It is a problem which is of interest to the public at large and it needs to be tackled. So I hope very much that the Minister will go back to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs—for whom I have a decreasing regard—and ask him to get on with the job because, I repeat, there are a number of things which could be done which do not depend upon legislation.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PASSENGER AND GOODS VEHICLES (RECORDING EQUIPMENT) REGULATIONS 1979
11.30 a.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November 1979 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, for many years past there has been argument in this country about the issue which we are about to debate: whether tachographs should be made compulsory in goods and passenger vehicles. It is now time for that argument to come to an end. The central question before us is one of compliance with existing law, and the fulfilment of fundamental treaty obligations.
The tachograph is a straightforward mechanical device, designed to provide a record of the driver's daily work. It makes automatic recordings, against a 24 hour clock, of the vehicle's speed, the distance travelled, and the length of time for which the vehicle is in motion. In addition, the driver himself, by operating a switch on the instrument, records what he has been doing at various times—driving, other periods of work, breaks from work, and rest periods.
To set these obligations in their context, let me begin with a little history. In 1970 the Council of Ministers of the EEC—the old Community of the Six—adopted Regulation 1463/70, which required the use of tachographs in most goods vehicles over 3·5 metric tons gross laden weight, and in most passenger vehicles not in regular service. This regulation was already in existence when the United Kingdom joined the EEC, and we accepted it. There was no subsequent attempt to re-negotiate it. Under the Treaty of Accession, tachographs should have become compulsory in the United Kingdom on new vehicles and those used for carrying dangerous goods in 1976, and for other vehicles in 1978. However, the Labour Government took no steps to give effect to the EEC tachograph regulation in accordance with this timetable; and indeed they made it clear that they did not intend to take any such measures.
In 1978 the Commission brought a case against the United Kingdom before the European Court. The United Kingdom's counsel before the Court argued that we already had a highly effective system of enforcing the law on drivers' hours, which achieved the purposes of the tachograph regulation. He pointed to the substantial costs which the introduction of tachographs would impose on the British road transport industry, and the risks of disruption. But these arguments were not successful. In February this year, the court ruled against the United Kingdom, finding that the practical considerations which the Government had put forward could not alter the fundamental legal duty of the United Kingdom to give effect to Community law. Their judgment was that, in failing to take the necessary measures to implement Regulation 1463/70 in full, the United Kingdom was in breach of its obligations under the Treaty. That, in a nutshell, is why I am introducing these draft regulations today. The court judgment has made it clear beyond any doubt that we must give effect to the EEC tachograph regulation. We have an absolute obligation under the Treaty to comply with the court ruling—as the previous Government also recognised.
The EEC tachograph regulation is already law in the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Rome makes all Council regulations directly applicable law, valid and binding without further action by national Legislatures. But these draft regulations are needed to attach penalties to breaches of the requirements of the EEC regulation, and to provide for practical transitional arrangements which will enable us to move to full implementation of the EEC regulation in the most efficient and economical way possible.
The main aim of the draft regulations is straightforward: they provide for implementation of the EEC tachograph regulation, No. 1463/70, over a two-year transitional period, leading to full compliance with the law by 31st December 1981. The programme for implementation begins with vehicles being used on international journeys, which must have tachographs in use from 14th January—the date when it is proposed the regulations should come into operation. Over the next two years successive classes of

1803
vehicles are required to have tachographs installed, working from newest to oldest. All tachographs must be in use by 31st December 1981; until then use is voluntary. Special provision is made for vehicles based on islands, which need not have tachographs fitted until the end of 1981, irrespective of the date of registration of the vehicle.
The two-year timetable is fairly tight. Some 400,000 vehicles will have to have tachographs fitted during the transitional period. Fortunately there are already 200 approved tachograph centres in existence, and we aim to have 450 by this time next year. Many people in the industry have expressed concern that the timetable will prove to be impracticable. I can assure you that the Government will be keeping a close watch on progress, and if for any reason the programme embodied in these draft regulations should prove unattainable we should not hesitate to take action; we do not intend that operators and drivers should find themselves outside the law through no fault of their own. But I must add that we believe these fears to be needless. The job can and will be done in two years; the timetable is realistic, and it will be enforced on that basis.
Like the 1977 regulations which established the present voluntary scheme for the use of tachographs, these draft regulations contain some provisions which supplement the requirements of the EEC regulation. But these supplementary provisions are fewer and simpler than before. The regulations also make provision for the voluntary use of tachographs in vehicles which are outside the scope of the EEC regulation.
There are also a number of things which these draft regulations do not do, for the simple reason that it is not in our power to do them. For example, we have been repeatedly asked to extend the list of exemptions which are provided by the EEC regulation itself. But it is not in the Government's power unilaterally to vary the terms of the EEC regulation or to modify its requirements. We have to give effect to it as it stands. Of course, Community legislation is not immutable, but if changes are needed—and we accept that there is room for improvements—they have to come through the legislative
1804
processes of the EEC itself, on a proposal from the Commission and with the agreement of all nine Member States. We are in a weak position to press for amendments so long as the United Kingdom is not implementing the present law. Once we are in line with the present legal requirements, we will be better placed to secure improvements in the law.
The tachograph has not had a good Press in this country. It has gained the wholly unmerited title of "spy in the cab". This really is nonsense. The driver has the key to the instrument, and can inspect the record at any time. Most of the information received is at present recorded manually on the driver's daily log sheet. Like manual records, the tachograph is simply a means of enforcing drivers' hours rules, in the interests of road safety. In spite of this, some drivers are, I know, worried that this permanent record of the details of their daily work may result in prosecutions, months after the event, for some minor infringement of the law which went entirely undetected at the time and of which the driver himself may have been scarcely aware. Of course, the Government cannot in any way condone breaches of the law. But I believe that drivers' fears are unnecessary. The Department of Transport's enforcement staff do not want to penalise the honest and careful driver who occasionally overruns his permitted hours by the odd few minutes. They want to catch the real lawbreakers, the irresponsible, and the drivers who work excessive hours.
I also expect that tachograph records will be little used in speeding prosecutions, and then only in conjunction with other, independent evidence. The tachograph records give no information about where the vehicle was at the time when it was travelling at a given speed, and some evidence of this would be needed to establish whether any offence had been committed. A speed which is illegal for a heavy goods vehicle on an ordinary road may be lawful on a motorway. Drivers' fears of retrospective speeding prosecutions long after the event, based solely on tachograph records, are without foundation.
It is also worth bearing in mind that a tachograph record can equally well protect the driver by disproving a mistaken

1805
accusation—when, for example, a radar check picks up the wrong vehicle. The same can be true in accident cases. There have already been cases in this country where the tachograph record from a goods vehicle involved in an accident has been used in court to show that the vehicle was travelling at a safe speed and that the driver was not to blame for what had occurred. The tachograph can be a good friend to the driver.
Indeed, it is time that we began to think of the tachograph in terms of the advantages which the road transport industry can get from it. First and foremost, of course, it helps to keep tired drivers off the roads. Its central function is to enforce the law on driver hours; and if it can help to make enforcement more effective it must be warmly welcomed by all who care about road safety. It can also have economic benefits. If drivers and employers are prepared to work together, use of the tachograph can be the basis of considerable savings in fuel consumption and vehicle maintenance costs. Analysis of the charts can also make a valuable contribution to management information, perhaps pointing out delays or inefficiencies in the operation of vehicles which could be avoided.
The tachograph is an accepted part of the driver's daily life in most of continental Europe—and not just in the EEC. Many non-Member States, such as Austria, Switzerland and Sweden, require their use. Indeed, many European trade unions regard it as a positive benefit to their members. I believe that there is already growing recognition of this in the United Kingdom too. It is time that we ended the uncertainty which has surrounded the issue for so long. The law must be implemented; let us get on with the job. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November 1979, be approved.—(Lord Bellwin.)
11.42 a.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation and for going over the historical background and the reason why we have this document before us this morning. He has confirmed that we have only about 200 calibration stations available at the moment, and some 450
1806
are going to be needed. I am not quite so complacent as the noble Lord is as to whether we can reach the projected dates without having a considerable increase in the number of stations. Were the dates agreed with both sides of industry before they were incorporated in the document? Is it feasible to try to introduce this if the machinery to carry it out is not available? I believe there is still room for maximum co-operation on both sides. The Transport and General Workers' Union, who have been fairly opposed to this for a long time, are now holding a ballot, and I would hope that possibly a national voluntary agreement might be the outcome of that ballot, which is likely to be known within a matter of a few days. Therefore, perhaps it is a little strange that this order is being put to the House today when perhaps, by waiting until immediately after the Christmas Recess, we might have had some indication of the sort of national voluntary agreement we were likely to get.
I am concerned about paragraph 5 of the order where it says:
"record sheets relating to national transport operations shall be two days".
It may be that I am a little dim this morning, perhaps because it is the end of the Session. Does that sentence mean that the driver has two days to produce the records, or that the records are only for the preceding two days? If it is the latter, that is a step backwards because the present drivers' log books show records for a week or more and give a much better indication of what has been happening to that driver and that vehicle.
If the noble Lord cannot reply today I understand, because I have not given him notice, but can he let me know, either today or on some future occasion, how far we are getting with EEC harmonisation over hours worked and hours driving? I know that the previous Government were trying to work towards some sort of agreement within the EEC on harmonisation of working hours so that drivers were not working longer hours partly on other work and partly on driving; that it was clear that they were working hours driving and not a mixture.
As I said, I still think that this order is perhaps a little premature. I accept that we have to comply with the decision of the European Court, and the previous

1807
Government would have done so. I personally have said on previous occasions from the Dispatch Box opposite that I do not fear the introduction of the tachograph and that conscientious drivers should have no fears about its introduction into their lorries. Indeed, I have also said from the opposite side of the House that I believe the drivers will find it to their advantage to have the tachograph in their machines. But because of my doubts about the ability to do the job by the dates laid down without a speedy increase in the number of calibration stations and fitters, and because we are so near the TGWU ballot result which might result in a national voluntary agreement, I still think we are premature in discussing this matter today. But I accept that the other place took the decision last night that the order should go through and should not be withdrawn and laid again. I can only ask the noble Lord to bear my fears in mind and to assure me that he will be able to deal with them if they are realised.
11.46 a.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I say that I am glad that at long last we have arrived at this morning's position. Perhaps it is well to remember that it was some years ago that there was in effect virtual agreement on all sides, and we then had the hiatus that has led to the unhappy steps being taken that have rather forced our hand. I think it is sad that a major industry has to have its hand forced by what some Members of your Lordships' House might call an outside agency.
On the point that has been made, both by my noble friend and fairly strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, concerning the 200 calibration stations, I think it would be fair to say that the motor industry has taken a rather sceptical view as to whether we were going to arrive at this position at this particular time. From my certain knowledge there has been a certain holding back. I have little doubt that now that it is firmly established that we are going forward, that there are upwards of half a million vehicles to be registered over the next two years, the industry will not be found lacking and will come forward for registration.
1808
There are two points I would mention which were particularly emphasised by the noble Lord the Minister when he spoke of the "spy in the cab", as it is known. He spoke about good will which is going to be necessary between employer and employee—a rather unhappy choice of phrase, I always think. I think that is less fearful than the warning of which I should like to make a point this morning: that the analysis of the card is perhaps the most important factor in disabusing drivers of the machine being a spy, disabusing drivers of the possibility of retrospective prosecution or penalty. I think there are very few transport managers in this country who are particularly adept and expert in reading the card. It is not an easy thing to read. There are a number of instruments that can be brought in to help in the reading, and I hope that the department will encourage training boards and other agencies to ensure that there is adequate provision of training courses for the reading of the analysis of the record card, because without a fair read-off the drivers are going to be disillusioned very quickly and the scheme brought into disrepute. If there is, unhappily, a reversal of confidence it will take a very long time to bring it back.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, also spoke about drivers' hours. There is some unhappiness not only in the transport industry but also in the passenger-carrying industry, as regards the two sets of drivers' hours regulations. They are complicated and currently they work very unfairly against our people. In any work towards harmonisation there should be greater emphasis placed on the attending time, as distinct from the driving time. However, having said that, I am delighted that we have arrived at this situation and am glad that the draft order has been moved.
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, I understood the Minister to indicate that in certain circumstances he is prepared to take action. I wonder whether he would indicate to the House the nature of the action and under what circumstances it would be taken?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I should like briefly to ask a few questions. Those of us who have been concerned

1809
about the influence of the Common Market on our national sovereignty regret the assumptions that are being made. First, I should like to know why the tachograph should increase the safety of British driving. I consider the British lorry driver to be one of the safest drivers in the Western World. I consider that the accident record of the British people will not be improved by the tachograph, as compared with the record of European nations. I consider that driving in London is some of the best driving to be seen in cities throughout the world—and I have driven in one or two in my time. Consequently, I do not accept the presumption that the tachograph will increase safety on roads.
I should also like to ask about the inclusion of tachographs in vehicles which is at present voluntary. If I happened to be a sugar beet farmer and had to take about three or four lorries of beet to be turned into sugar, am I ultimately going to be asked to use the tachograph? Upon whom is the burden of this expense to fall? Ultimately, it will appear in the cost of our exports. Already we have problems enough.
I should also like to know whether any of these figures were discussed in depth. I do not wish to delay the House any further on this issue, but I am not prepared to accept that the tachograph will make a great increase in efficiency. How long will it be before this House is confronted with an order from the Economic Community that we must bear the burden of carrying 44 tonne lorries?—lorries which are destroying the drainage systems and the underground sewage systems in many of our cities. I see that a noble Lord opposite is shaking his head. I was on the Mining Subsidence Committee for some years, examining mining subsidence in this country and also the effect of heavy travel on our roadways, which were not made to bear these burdens. All of those factors can no longer be considered within the sovereignty of the British Parliament and I consider this a serious step backwards.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am not in opposition to the introduction of the tachograph. I think that it is one of those things which we must accept in these days when lorries undertake
1810
journeys of very long distances not only in this country but abroad. However, I feel that these regulations which are to be issued to the industry, and therefore to the drivers, are far too complicated for many of them to understand. I trust that a simpler form of memorandum will be issued to the industry so that it can pass it on to the drivers and the drivers' unions.
For example, I ask your Lordships to turn to page 3 of the regulations and the second paragraph. I defy the ordinary lorry driver to understand it, but your Lordships of course may do so. It says:
"In this Part of this Act—
'the Community Recording Equipment Regulation' means Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1463/70 of 20th July 1970 on the introduction of recording equipment in road transport, as amended by Council Regulations (EEC) Nos. 1787/73, and 2828/77, and as read with the Community Road Transport Rules (Exemptions) Regulations 1978".
The ordinary lorry driver, unless he is provided with a whole volume of regulations, will not understand that and he will not understand when he is complying with the law and when he is breaking it. But, as I have said, if a simpler memorandum were issued to the industry explaining the conditions which have to be obeyed in future under these regulations, it would be better.
I wish to ask a question. What will be the cost of fitting a tachograph to an ordinary vehicle? Will it be compulsory that it be fitted to omnibuses? I see that the title of the regulations says, "Passenger and Goods Vehicles". If it is to be fitted to ordinary omnibuses, passenger-carrying buses, what influence will this have on the fares that the bus undertakings charge to their passengers?
11.57 a.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, cast doubt on the practicability of the timetable in the draft regulations. There is, in fact, no precise information about the number of vehicles that will have to be fitted and we do not know, for example, how many already have tachographs. But the estimates are as realistic as they can be and in making them we have tried to err on the high side. Whether or not the regulations that I am bringing forward today are premature must be a matter of opinion.

1811
The fact is that from 14th January the tachograph is obligatory in vehicles being used on international journeys, and that surely must be a factor in deciding the timetable. As the noble Baroness rightly presumed, I shall need to write to her as regards the harmonisation of working hours with the EEC and I gladly undertake to do so.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for his most helpful and constructive remarks. Indeed, I have taken careful note of what he has said. The noble Lord, Lord Galpern, asked the nature of the action that might be taken and in what circumstances. Clearly, as regards that matter too, I am not today in a position to tell him, but gladly undertake to write and do so.
I thought that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, were interesting. He asked why the tachograph should increase safety. The basic reason is that anything which ensures that the regulations as to the hours driven are adhered to as strictly as is reasonable can only be a plus factor in helping safety. The regulations in no way imply that the record of British drivers is any less good than that of any other country. Indeed, I take his point very much that they are probably better than, shall we say, most. As to the burden of cost, he is right; it will fall upon the industry. But, in the context of the totality of the many billions of pounds which are spent, I think that the figures, as I have seen them, really are at the margin. So, although anything which adds to cost cannot be welcome, nevertheless within the framework of the commitment to carry out the law as it is, I think that it is not too onerous, and I hope that the noble Lord may accept that that is so.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred to the need to send some simpler instructions to drivers. Of course, we must and certainly do take that point. He asked what is the cost of fitting the tachograph. The cost is approximately £300 per vehicle. As to its application to omnibuses, it does not apply to those omnibuses which carry out scheduled services; it applies to those which do not. There is not much more that I can add. Clearly, the regulations have to come into force and must be passed.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the crisp and kindly way in which he presented this order. I threw up a warning smokescreen about the 44-tonne lorries and the appropriate legislation which will come before Parliament. I should like that to be noted. I also mentioned agriculture. If the Minister cannot answer that point now, it is not all that important, but I should like a note from him on the matter, as it influences sugar beet farming, et cetera.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am glad to assure the noble Lord that I shall ensure that he receives a reply. Beyond that there is not much more that I can add.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified; reported from the Select Committee on unopposed provisions, with amendments.

ROYAL ASSENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,

European Communities (Greek Accession) Act,

Isle of Man Act,

Shipbuilding Act,

Zimbabwe Act,

Stirling District Council Order Confirmation Act,

Dumbarton District Council Order Confirmation Act,

Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Order Confirmation Act,

Kilmarnock and Loudoun District Council Order Confirmation Act,

Scots Episcopal Fund Order Confirmation Act,

University College London Act,

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act,

City of London (Various Powers) Act.

Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I might take this opportunity of wishing noble Lords opposite and, indeed, the whole House and the staff who serve us so well a happy Christmas and an enjoyable and relaxing Recess.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for what he has just said. I have been asked by my friends on this side of the House to convey to every one of your Lordships our hope that the coming year will have many good things in store for us, not least among them the ending of the Government's responsibility for government. If I may conclude on a brighter note, we wish you all the joys and the message associated with Christmas itself.