Lords Sitting of 14 July 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester

Putney Bridge Station: Control
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 have received a report on the signal control room at Earl's Court which demonstrates that the nuisance suffered by passengers at Putney Bridge station is due to the refusal of British Rail to transfer control of the Wimbledon/Putney section of the line to London Transport and whether they will intervene to bring this about.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have seen the report by the Putney Society and sent copies to British Rail and London Transport, since it concerns matters of railway operation which are entirely their responsibility. I understand from them that there are no proposals for control of the Wimbledon to Putney section of line to be transferred from one operator to the other, but that they will look into the society's complaint about information given to passengers at Putney Bridge Station.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am most grateful to him for looking into this matter, as will all those people be who travel from Putney Bridge Station? For too many years, as I think he will know, passengers have been walking up one row of stairs only to watch a train disappearing from the further platform, and then they have had to walk back again and sometimes watch another train disappear from the original platform as they do so. This has gone on far too long. I understand that the problem can be solved by co-operation between British Rail and London Transport, and if the noble Earl's intervention has resulted in bringing that about, a lot of people will be very grateful to him, including myself.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am told that steps have immediately been taken to correct this deficiency. Perhaps if the noble Lord still finds himself running up and down stairs he will let me know.

NHS: Reciprocal Agreements
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what efforts are being made to increase agreements on reciprocal
336
treatment between the National Health Service and the counterparts in other countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will continue to consider making reciprocal health care agreements when it is practicable to do so. Although the value and convenience of these agreements is generally acknowledged, experience has shown that new agreements are not always mutually beneficial or feasible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am most grateful for the assurance that he has just given that the Government intend to continue with this principle? Is he further aware that many people believe that if we could increase our fervour for reciprocity in regard to this great principle, which was initiated by this nation, then, particularly in the times in which we live of slaying and maiming, it not only would be of benefit to our nation but could indeed encourage mankind to tread a much saner course than the one it is on at the moment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord is right in ascribing the high-powered results from these agreements which he has described, but I think it is important that people who propose to travel abroad ascertain the arrangements which will apply in the countries which they propose to visit. My department issues a leaflet for that purpose, which perhaps I could make available more widely to your Lordships through the Printed Paper Office, which gives particular guidance to almost every country that people are likely to visit, including, of course, the European Community.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, with the growth of tourism, not only in the more popular countries such as Spain and Portugal, but in the EFTA countries, such as Iceland, it is very desirable for Her Majesty's Government to liaise with the Governments of these countries to see whether some equitable arrangements along similar lines can be made? Is my noble friend aware that this would boost our own exports?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. We have agreement, of course, with the European Community. We also have agreements with some 15 or 20 countries outside the European Community. My noble friend mentioned Iceland. I am happy to tell him that we are on the point of concluding an agreement with that country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House some indication as to the endeavours that have been made by Her Majesty's Government to follow up the initiatives which were displayed by the Council of Europe in this regard?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not quite certain which initiative of the Council of Europe the noble Lord is referring to in this matter. If he would like to give me more details, I will certainly look into it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, following up the questions that he has answered, may I ask the

337
Minister whether the national health card plays a significant role in this matter; and, if so, should our nationals going abroad carry these cards with them? Further, do other countries which have reciprocal arrangements issue similar cards, or in what way do we assess that a patient is entitled to reciprocal treatment on arrival in this country or when residing here?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in general, NHS cards do not play a significant role in this matter because they are not a certificate of entitlement to treatment under the National Health Service. They are issued to patients who are included on the list of a particular doctor. As for persons entering this country, again, the card is not, as I say, a certificate of entitlement. That particular matter is determined in other ways.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall, about two weeks ago, answering a Question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, regarding the treatment of foreigners who come to this country, and particularly of foreign students? Is he aware that, quite apart from reciprocal arrangements, there are countries in the world in which British people, and indeed any other foreigners, can go and get some completely free medical treatment—and I am thinking particularly of a country where I spend a lot of time, Zambia—whereas now, under the new Government arrangements, such foreigners and foreign students coming to this country are not given reciprocal arrangements?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of the Health Service charges for overseas visitors was, as the noble Lord says, discussed in response to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, a week or so ago. I am not sure that I have anything to add to the Answer that I gave on that occasion. As for the case of Zambia, the country to which the noble Lord is referring, it is the case that we do not have a reciprocal agreement with that country and therefore the overseas charges regulations will apply in that case.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that British people going to Zambia get completely free medical treatment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if there is a case for examining a reciprocal agreement with Zambia, as the noble Lord seems to be suggesting, I shall certainly be willing to do that. Perhaps the noble Lord will be willing to give me more information of the matter he describes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to clarify his answer to me as I did not quite understand when he said that anyone possessing a national health card has no evidence of entitlement to treatment? I understood the reverse; that there may be many more people entitled to treatment than those possessing a national health card. Is he saying that national health cards are issued to people not entitled to treatment? Can he amplify the point as to when they are issued (a) to people who were born here or (b) to people like myself who arrived in this
338
country; and what the situation is for EEC nationals who come here to take up employment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can confirm what I said earlier to my noble friend, that National Health Service cards are not a certificate of entitlement to treatment under the health service. They are normally issued to persons at birth or when they are entered on to a doctor's list. That is not the same thing as determining entitlement to treatment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, if we could brush aside much of the bureacracy that is involved in the principle of reciprocity, we would make a big step forward? Is he aware that I am one of those who happens to believe that if when my fellow countrymen went to another country and people from other countries came here and something happened to them, to their families, to their children or to their relatives, they received the treatment which any human being should be given, and there was no question of asking whence they came but to help them overcome either grief or pain, when such people returned to their countries and our people come back to our country, it would increase the feeling that we are all of one great race and make a contribution to achieving world peace?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that he is pushing at an open door in this matter. We certainly accept the merits of these agreements where arrangements can be made. One of the difficulties is that many other countries do not have the comprehensive health service that we have and therefore a reciprocal agreement is not really possible. It is possible, however, to have a limited reciprocal agreement of some sort—for example, the sort of agreement that we have with some of our dependent territories—where primary health care is really the only thing immediately subject to the agreement. Perhaps that may be a possibility in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, raised.

Air Pollution Convention: Ratification
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: 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 have ratified the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution signed in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government intend to ratify the convention jointly with other member states of the European Community tomorrow, 15th July.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that most gratifying Answer, which seems to give universal pleasure. May I further ask him what replies

339
the Government have given to the persistent complaints of the Scandinavian countries that their crops and property are being damaged by acid rain which they attribute to industrial pollution generated in Britain and carried on the winds to Scandinavia?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the United Kingdom was represented at the conference by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Giles Shaw, who led the United Kingdom delegation. This was in Stockholm. We were represented there by scientists and officials at meetings of experts which took place in the previous week. I do not want to say more about that because my honourable friend is shortly going to make a Statement on this matter in response to a question.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I was under the impression that the majority of the acid rain came from Germany, where vast areas of forest have been destroyed by this pollution.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think my noble friend's comments underline how difficult it is to find out what causes acid rain. The effects are not yet clearly established. As I understand it, it is the forests themselves which are being rained upon by acid rain, the results of which are not yet fully documented.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, although happily we are going to ratify the convention tomorrow, it will not come into effect until most European states have ratified it. Therefore, will the Government, in the meantime, undertake to take action—as they are entitled to—since it is the sulphur emissions horn the chimneys of the power stations in this country which are the principal cause of acid rain in south Scandinavia?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that perhaps the noble Baroness goes a little far to say that this is the principal cause of what is going on in Scandinavia. Our activities comprise a very small percentage of what is going on there. Perhaps I can say that, although the convention has not yet come into force, action has proceeded on an interim basis. A Europe-wide monitoring programme is under way to determine the extent of acid rainfall in Europe and a group of experts from signatory countries, including the United Kingdom, is reviewing the scientific evidence on the effects of air pollution, including acid rain, on the environment, and the cost, damage and control. The convention itself is likely to come into force later this year once 24 of the 35 signatories have ratified.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, since the acid rain is not labelled, nobody really knows where it comes from? It might just as well come from Russia as from Britain.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in point of fact one of the sadnesses of the Stockholm Conference was that the Eastern European countries were not represented. Of course, we should very much like to get their evidence as well.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not possible to resolve this matter once and for all—and following the noble Earl's question—by labelling the flue gases from power stations with other isotopes of sulphur that will enable the fall-out to be identified as coming from a particular origin? Would not the Minister also confirm that the problem with acid rain is now spread not just from Scandinavia but to the entire Northern Hemisphere, and that our own agriculture in this country is threatened in the long term with serious side effects from this cause? Therefore, should it not be the subject of intensive research by the Government, probably in co-operation with other European and North American nations?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I have said in my reply that the problem is being actively considered and research is progressing alongside the present convention. If I may state one factor, sulphur dioxide emissions, which account for about 70 per cent. of the acidity in rainfall, have reduced very substantially in the United Kingdom in the past decade. The trend will, we hope, continue for the foreseeable future. There are a number of reasons for this and they include the changing industrial patterns, the energy conservation policies and the use of low sulphur fuels and of nuclear power.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? As we know not from whence it comes, is this not a matter that should be referred to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that there is a little research that we can do which may perhaps help him.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that we ought first to hear the results of the research to find out what proportion of the atmosphere is acid before jumping to conclusions?
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful for my noble friend's calm reaction.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, what matters is which way the wind blows, and whether the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury could divert the great winds is a matter for conjecture. When the wind blows Nor' Nor' West, terrible consequences result!

UN Second Special Session on Disarmament
2.52 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the conclusions of the Second United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, as was stated yesterday in another place, the United Kingdom played a full part in the work of the Special Session which finished on 10th July. Agreement was not possible on the substantive disarmament items on the agenda—namely, a review of progress since the First Special Session in 1978 and a Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament—but we believe that the discussions have been helpful in increasing understanding of the issues. Priority should now be given to making progress on the important negotiations under way elsewhere: on intermediate-range nuclear forces, strategic arms reductions, for mutual and balanced force reductions, and a convention banning chemical weapons.
The Special Session agreed on the guidelines for a World Disarmament Campaign, under the auspices of the United Nations, which we believe will help to ensure that the campaign can operate in all parts of the world.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while I am surprised that the Government have not taken their own initiative about making a Statement on this important subject, may I thank the Minister for what he has stated? Has he seen the Statement of the United Nations Secretary-General expressing deep disappointment and frustration at the decisions taken at New York? Is he aware that that deep disappointment is shared by the 3,000 representatives of non-governmental organisations which were present, and by 76 of the Governments who took part in the session? Is he further aware that those of us who have attended some of the sessions and who had have read the detailed daily reports of the United Nations Association are deeply impressed by the fact that the majority of delegates demanded action, and that that action was obstructed by the representatives of the super-powers? I regret to ask—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Brockway:—was it not mainly by the West, the United States of America and representatives of Britain? Did they not oppose—
Several noble Lords: Speech.
Lord Brockway:—any positive action for a comprehensive programme on the grounds that bilateral negotiations—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, can bring his supplementary question to a conclusion as soon as possible, that will be a help.
Lord Brockway: But, my Lords, this is a very important subject affecting millions of people. May I ask the Government whether the West did not oppose the comprehensive programme of action relying on bilateral negotiations and the nuclear deterrent, and whether Her Majesty's Government have some very great responsibility for the failure which has occurred at this Assembly?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the fundamental reason that the talks broke down was the different perceptions of security of states. We seek a programme of balanced measures covering nuclear and conventional disarmament, and that is different from the approach of some non-aligned Governments which place undue emphasis on nuclear disarmament. Regarding the position of the United Kingdom Government, we believe that initiatives for measures of arms control and disarmament are best taken where there is a possibility of negotiating specific measures. If I may say so, I do not think that we should be too disappointed with the outcome of the Special Session because I think that it is upon this that delegates will now focus.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that possibly the most promising disarmament negotiations at present are those taking place in Vienna on mutual and balanced force reductions? Would he agree that although these have been going on for a long time, substantial progress has been made, and might it not be that if the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues now took a strong personal interest in these negotiations, success might come?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is able to say that there is progress in the talks on mutually balanced force reductions in Vienna is because the West has taken an initiative in tabling in Vienna on 8th July, in the form of a draft treaty, proposals for replacing the previous two-phase approach with one based on a single stage agreement. The value of this initiative is that it shows to the East that the allies are all serious in agreeing that they wish to combine together in achieving conventional force reductions in the talks in Vienna.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in the light of the disappointing results in the Special Session, will the Government now re-consider their opposition to the working group on general and comprehensive disarmament in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva which they have been opposed to over the past year or two?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I was not aware that the Government had in any way been opposed to talks in Geneva.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that very many people who are desperately interested in this question recognise many of the difficulties that are involved in making disarmament a reality, and that one of them seems to be that when conventions, conferences and summits are called and they agree to certain decisions on reducing arms, the problem seems to be how can the one side or the other be certain that the others are playing the game and are actually carrying out the decisions of the conference and disarming? Can the Government pay a great deal of attention to that aspect and perhaps find a formula where any agreement could be seen to be implemented?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am more than grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for asking that question, because the noble Lord shrewdly puts his finger

343
on the two main problems which have been outstanding for many years between the West and the Soviet Union: namely, data—that is to say, how many forces, weapons and troops have each side in their possession?—and verification. It is on both of those issues that Soviet Russia has, year in and year out, refused to agree.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we welcomed his rather more positive Answer to my noble friend's original Question? We found it a rather promising and positive approach. But with reference to his last answer to my noble friend Lord Molloy, the Government are surely aware that, for the first time, the Soviet Government has talked about acceptance of on the spot inspection, and what is the Government's response to that? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that we hope we do not have the usual rather cynical reaction to that kind of offer from the Soviet Union.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is perfectly true that, for the first time, the Soviet Union has mentioned verification. We very much hope that they are genuine in this proposal.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been very considerable disappointment at the relative lack of success of the Second United Nations Session, having regard to the unanimity which was achieved at the First Session? In view of this very great disappointment, will the Government see what they can do to take the World Disarmament Campaign very seriously so far as this country is concerned? Perhaps they will even go so far as to work together with my noble friend Lord Brockway who has this cause, as all of us have, very much at heart.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we hope that the guidelines agreed at the Special Session will ensure that the campaign, under the auspices of the United Nations, operates in all parts of the world. We see no call at present for any extra contributions, because we believe that the United Nations has the resources and the outlets that are required. We believe, therefore, that the campaign should be able to go ahead.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, if the Government are going to make a contribution towards the World Disarmament Campaign of the United Nations for educational purposes, is the noble Lord aware that, despite this failure at New York, the peace movement in the world is now becoming so strong that in 10 years, despite this failure, we will succeed in opposition to the militarist Governments of the world?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord represents a point of view which believes in unilaterilist disarmament. What is the point of unilaterally disarming and then expecting the Russians at the conference table to make sensible concessions in negotiation? This would not occur and unilateral disarmament would, in fact, undermine hopes for multilateral disarmament. It is those arguments on which
344
the United Kingdom and the Western Alliance pin all their hopes.
Lord Brockway: But, my Lords, the World Disarmament Campaign is not urging unilateral disarmament. We have urged carrying out the decisions of the First Assembly, and the British Government—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Brockway:—have been largely responsible for obstructing that at the second meeting.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said at the beginning of this Question, the Western Alliance has not been instrumental in obstructing the work of the Special Session. The reason why the Special Session, as a general meeting, failed was that there was, from some Governments, undue emphasis on nuclear disarmament and nuclear disarmament alone. The matter goes very much wider than that and, as I have made clear this afternoon, the West have put forward important proposals for reductions in conventional forces. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, does not like hearing that the West is still striving in this way for peace, but the West is, and that is the truth of the matter.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his last remark to my noble friend Lord Brockway was scarcely fair? Is he aware that my noble friend does like to hear about progress?—we all do. Is the noble Lord also aware that, when my noble friend asked whether the Government would back the educational programme on disarmament, I felt he was a little unfair in directing the argument on to unilateral disarmament, when we all want disarmament of every single kind?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I respond to the noble Baroness? The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, believes in unilateral disarmament and in undue emphasis upon disarmament in nuclear weapons. For reasons which I have given on many occasions, other than this afternoon, the Government do not agree. What the Government do agree with the noble Lord on—and I think there is probably wide agreement in your Lordships' House—is that the one success which was achieved in the United Nations Special Session was agreement for the World Disarmament Campaign. We support it and hope that it succeeds.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on industrial action on the railways.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Transport Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure and the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure will be taken.

Transport Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 38 [Notification of court and diet of trial in Scotland]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 43, line 37, leave out ("by which and the diet at which the offence will be tried") and insert ("at which and the date on which the case will first call").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment which seeks to clarify that the date given in a notification of appearance in court under Clause 38 in Scotland is not the date of any trial for the offence, but the date on which the case will first call in court. This has always been our intention but, as presently drafted, the clause could be interpreted to mean that the trial itself will occur on that day and that any witnesses et cetera are required to attend court then. We would, of course, wish to avoid such misunderstandings if at all possible. The date given in the appearance ticket will be the day on which the alleged offender's plea will be taken, and, if he pleads not guilty, a date for trial will be fixed. It will not be possible for the constable at the roadside to fix a day for a trial, because he will have no idea how many of the drivers to whom he gives fixed penalty notices will choose to go to court, and how many of them will plead not guilty. This amendment therefore clarifies what is meant by the clause, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 44, line 3, leave out ("diet of trial of") and insert ("date of first calling of a case concerning").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon the amendment which I have just moved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 44, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—
("the following provisions of this section shall apply for the purpose of any proceedings in respect of the offence.
(3) The notification of the court and date of first calling shall have effect as if it were a citation to an accused person by virtue of section 315 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 notwithstanding that such notification may not be in the form referred to in subsection (2) of that section.
(4) A copy of the fixed penalty notice given under section 26(1) of this Act shall have effect as if it were a complaint under
346
Part II of the said Act of 1975, and the provisions of that Part of that Act shall accordingly apply—

(a) to the copy fixed penalty notice as if it were a complaint; and

(b) to the fixed penalty notice as if it were a copy complaint served on the accused under that Part of that Act.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above—

(a) it shall not be necessary for the fixed penalty notice to be signed by the prosecutor or by a solicitor on behalf of a prosecutor other than the public prosecutor of a court;

(b) a copy fixed penalty notice having effect as if it were a complaint shall not be held to be irrelevant by reason only—

(i) that the charge in the fixed penalty notice is not in the form referred to in section 312 of the said Act of 1975; or

(ii) that no further specification is given than the specification required for a fixed penalty notice by section 28(6)(a) of this Act

and without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, paragraphs (a) to (z) of the said section 312 shall apply in respect of the charge referred to in subparagraph (i) above; and

(c) section 311(5) of the said Act of 1975 shall not apply in respect of a fixed penalty notice having effect as if it were a complaint, but there shall be given to the alleged offender along with the fixed penalty notice a notice stating the penalties to which he would be liable in the event of his conviction for the offence.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This rather fearsome-looking amendment is not, as I hope I will be able to show, as complicated as it looks. Its objective is to make what has been called the "appearance ticket" system introduced in the Bill work more smoothly in Scotland. It does two things. First, it runs together two of the clauses in the Bill. If noble Lords examine the amendment closely, they will see that subsections (3), (4) and (5)(a) simply re-state what is already in the Bill—at the end of Clause 38(2) and in Clause 46(1) and 46(2). I will explain in a moment why the Government seek to do this. Secondly, it makes two adjustments which are designed to dovetail the "appearance ticket" provisions with existing Scottish summary criminal procedure. These changes are a little technical, but they will be of practical importance.
It might be helpful if I remind the Committee of the objective of the "appearance ticket", which is contained for Scotland in Clause 38 of the Bill. When the policeman at the roadside gives a driver a fixed penalty notice, he can give him at the same time—and perhaps as part of the notice—notification of when and in what court his case will appear, if he chooses to exercise his right to go to court. This will obviate the need for personal service on the driver at a later date of a citation for a court appearance, saving time and money for all concerned. In an ordinary summary criminal prosecution in Scotland, the accused is always served with a complaint. It is a document setting out exactly what he is charged with, and is served at the same time as the citation to appear in court. Under the appearance ticket system the fixed penalty notice itself is to serve the purpose of the complaint, because it is given to the driver at the same time as the appearance ticket, of course, and it sets out what he is supposed to have done. That is why Clause 46 provides that a fixed penalty notice can have effect as a complaint.
However, Clause 46 is drafted in such a way as to include all fixed penalty notices given to the driver

347
under Clause 26(1) and it is not confined to cases where an appearance ticket has been given. That is not quite right. The fixed penalty notice need only be a complaint when an appearance ticket has been given under Clause 38. That is why we wish to run together Clause 38 and Clause 46. If the amendment is made, a fixed penalty notice will have effect as a complaint only where an appearance ticket has been given, if no appearance ticket has been given, a complaint and a citation to court will be served on the motorist in the normal way if he chooses to exercise his right to go to court.
The amendment also makes two adjustments to Scottish summary criminal procedure to suit the appearance ticket system. They are both designed to make things simpler, both for the police and the motorist, and consequently cheaper. The purpose of these two other changes is to make the complaint for the purposes of a court proceeding following on a fixed penalty notice have as its substitute the fixed penalty notice. The purpose of a complaint, and of a fixed penalty notice which is to have effect as one, is to tell the person accused of the offence which he is alleged to have committed. It is usually expressed, in the ordinary case, in rather technical legal language and can consequently be quite difficult for a lay person quickly to understand. It is certainly not something one could expect a police constable to write out on a rainy day at the side of the road when filling in a fixed penalty notice. What subsection (5)(b) therefore seeks to do is to provide that the charge and the fixed penalty notice need not be in the standard form of complaint and that it need be no more complicated or specific than it needs to be to be a proper fixed penalty notice—that is to say, it must give reasonable information about the offence. It should as a consequence be clearer for the motorist who receives it.
The second adjustment is a question of form rather than substance. At the moment, when a complaint contains a charge of breaching any statute, the accused person must get a notice setting out the penalties to which he would be liable if he were convicted. That notice must be in a specified form. It will be simpler, and easier, when designing the fixed penalty notice, to explain to the driver the maximum penalties to which he would be liable by putting them on the fixed penalty notice itself rather than by giving him a notice of penalties in the traditional form suitable for other cases. What subsection (c), therefore, seeks to do is to provide that notice of the maximum penalties must be given to the alleged offender, but they need not be in the traditional form prescribed under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act. I hope therefore that your Lordships will feel that these amendments, although somewhat technical in character, do make improvements of a practical kind. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: There are one or two points which my noble friend Lord Mishcon wishes to raise on the legal aspect, but may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether we can be assured that although there are differences in Scottish law the treatment for fixed penalty offences does not vary in Scotland compared with the rest of England and Wales. If it does, naturally we should like to see what can be done about it.
348
Could the noble and learned Lord deal with the point which arose on Amendment No. 42, which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that he might be able to deal with this afternoon: That if a driver in Scotland does not have his licence he will not be able to present that licence at any police station in Scotland. The point I made on the earlier occasion was that I frequently go to Scotland for my holidays. If I do not have my licence with me, it means that I have to journey back across the border to present my licence at a police station in England and then go back to continue my holiday. Why is there this difference? Why, in that respect, can citizens of Great Britain not be treated likewise? If that is the position, is it possible for the Government to bring forward an amendment?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I should like to take this opportunity, in answering the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to go somewhat wide of the present amendment in order to try to explain the position in relation to fixed penalties under the Bill for Scotland. I am sorry that I was unable to be here on the last occasion when the question arose. I think that my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve was kind enough to hope that the Lord Advocate would come out of the mist and be able to dispel the fog that seemed to be surrounding the provisions.
As your Lordships know, there are different systems of criminal procedure north and south of the Scottish border. The extended fixed penalty system in the Bill must, like the existing fixed penalty system, fit in with existing criminal procedure because if the motorist disputes his guilt of the allegation it is the criminal court which will have to resolve the matter. Fixed penalty offences remain criminal and can be dealt with, in the absence of admission of guilt, in the criminal courts.
For the purposes of the Bill, the most important difference between the Scottish and the English criminal jurisdictions is that Scotland has a public prosecutor independent of the police. In cases of this kind, the procurator fiscal, who is the local officer responsible to the Lord Advocate, has the responsibility for initiating prosecutions for offences reported to him by the police. In England, on the other hand, the police are responsible generally for initiating prosecutions in cases of this kind. It is natural, therefore, when we consider extending the fixed penalty system, that in Scotland the option of the fixed penalty should be made available also to the procurator fiscal as well as to the police. It is a sensible and logical extension of the fiscal's existing discretion not to prosecute or to proceed, as the case demands.
This question of fixed penalties as an alternative to prosecutions was considered by a committee set up by the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate in a previous administration under the chairmanship of Lord Stewart, a judge of the Court of Session. The Stewart Committee, having considered this aspect of the matter, recommended in accordance with what I have just said. I should like to take this opportunity to thank them for the work they have done. They are fairly unique, in that we are attempting to legislate on their recommendations while they are still sitting

349
to consider whether there are other areas in which alternatives to prosecution can be available.
It is sensible also that the discretion available to the fiscal in offering fixed penalties should be wider than that available to the police. He considers the matter on paper and at his office rather than at the roadside, and he is already expected and trained to exercise a wide discretion in making prosecution decisions. Also, he has security of tenure in his position which is intended to guarantee his independence.
Clause 40 and Schedule 2 to the Bill are therefore intended to give the procurator fiscal the power to offer fixed penalties both for offences in Schedule 1—those are the ones that the police can offer—and the wider range of offences in Schedule 2. This follows the recommendations of the Stewart Committee. The fiscal will have the power to offer fixed penalties for fixed penalty offences in cases where the police have not already done so. It follows therefore that he will be able to issue fixed penalty notices in cases where the police have been unable to do so because the driver has not been carrying his driving licence and the offence concerned is endorsable. Your Lordships know that if an offence is not endorsable the police can offer a fixed penalty, whether or not the driver has his licence.
Those noble Lords who have read the debates in Committee in another place on the Bill will know that there was concern that the driver who happened not to be carrying his licence would be deprived of the opportunity of a fixed penalty. Because of the provisions of Clause 40 of the Bill there was no such concern for Scotland. Where the driver in Scotland was not carrying his driving licence and offended in Scotland, the procurator fiscal was able to offer him the fixed penalty notice without the necessity of him going near any police station. He was able to send the offer to the motorist in the way for which the Bill provides.
Clause 27 of the Bill attempted to meet this concern for England and Wales by allowing a driver, in these circumstances, to get a fixed penalty within five days at a police station. Your Lordships will understand from what I am saying that that provision is not needed for Scotland because the procurator fiscal was able to do what Clause 27 now enables the police to do in England at a police station within five days of the offence. Therefore, it is not necessary that Clause 27 should apply in Scotland.
In the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Avon on, the last occasion on which your Lordships were in Committee, the Government sought to exclude Scotland entirely from the operation of the arrangements under Clause 27 by making it impossible for a motorist stopped by the police in England or Wales for an endorsable offence to nominate a police station in Scotland at which to receive a fixed penalty notice. The object of that change was to ease the administrative burden on the Scottish policy. If the amendment were not made, every Scottish police station would have to be equipped, trained and manned to issue fixed penalty notices in these circumstances, even though they themselves did not have to issue them in similar circumstances. The cost of doing this, as the police saw it, would in the Government's
350
view be disproportionate because only a small number of drivers would need to use this facility. I say a "small number" because the only motorists likely to be affected will be Scottish motorists driving in England or Wales who are stopped by the police for an endorsable fixed penalty offence. Also, they must not wish to dispute their guilt and they must be willing to accept an endorsement—otherwise they will have to go to court, anyway.
We therefore conclude that the number of people likely to be affected by this particular restriction in the amendment moved by my noble friend is not such as to justify placing on the Scottish police the administrative burden of performing this particular job. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that it is extremely important that we do what we can to minimise the administrative burden that is put upon the police. It is very important that their resources should be available for proper police work and that we should do what we can to minimise the administrative burden upon them. It is in that spirit that the provision was made for Scotland; that it was the procurator fiscal whose office was equipped to deal with this kind of matter and who should issue the offer of a fixed penalty in cases where that had not been done at the roadside.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is concerned, I am extremely glad to hear that he exercises his usual great discretion in his choice of a place to which to go on holiday. I can assure him that if perchance he was to become involved in any kind of road traffic difficulty in Scotland, he would find the arrangements made to accommodate him with the offer of a fixed penalty very smooth indeed. Certainly he would not need to come back to England for the purpose of the 28-day period which is allowed after the fiscal offers the notice, unless his holiday was particularly extensive or he was unable to get his licence from home. I have given, perhaps, a longer explanation than your Lordships would expect in relation to this particular amendment but it may enable your Lordships to appreciate the general background to this matter from a Scottish point of view.
3.25 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate widen his explanation just a little, to explain what happens to the motorist normally resident in Scotland who has left his licence behind in Scotland and who is then convicted in England of a fixed penalty endorsable offence, who is not going to be back in Scotland for a month to rootle out his licence and show it?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I may have misheard the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Was she speaking about a motorist normally resident in Scotland who is convicted in England?
Lady Saltoun: Yes, I was.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: So far as that is concerned, if anyone is brought to court for an endorsable offence—and that is the situation to which we are referring—there is an obligation to give the licence to the court so that the court may have the licence endorsed.

351
It is necessary at some stage before the court disposes of the matter that the licence is recovered and sent to the court—not necessarily, of course, by the person going home to get it but by making arrangements to have it brought to the court. That, of course, is a standard consequence in such cases.
In respect of the case of a person who is resident in Scotland who transgresses the law in England and who has left his licence at home, the situation there will be that either he gets a fixed penalty by bringing the licence to an English police station or he pleads guilty by letter. If the case goes to court, he would need to do more than write a letter. So the actual disadvantage from the point of view of the individual who wishes to plead guilty—it is only on that assumption that this question arises—is very small in comparison with the administrative difficulty that would be involved for the police if the arrangements were totally different.
Lord Paget of Northampton: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would help me because I am not a Scottish lawyer. Do I understand that the situation would be this: If I forgot my licence and I committed an offence, I will be given five days in which to produce the licence at my own police station. My police station then notifies the prosecuting authority that T have duly produced my licence. When the matter goes to court, if it goes to court, I have to take my licence along with me. In the case of a fixed penalty, presumably the licence just has to be sent to the prosecuting authority. Why should that not equally happen to a Scotsman who commits an offence? When he goes back home, it is very inconvenient for him to come back to England to produce his licence at the police station. Why can he not produce it at a Scottish police station? All the Scottish police station has to do is to send the licence to the prosecuting authority with the notice that has been produced to them. What is the difficulty about that?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have not made the position sufficiently clear and it is entirely my fault. If a motorist is asked by a policeman to produce his licence and fails to do so, there is an obligation to produce it within five days at a police station. There is nothing being done in this Bill in any way to affect that or make it impossible to perform that obligation in Scotland. In the case which the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, has figured—where the motorist happened to be resident in Scotland at the time when this had occurred, and was asked in England to produce his licence—he could produce it when he got home and that would be perfectly satisfactory. There is no problem.
But this Bill is dealing with the question of getting a fixed penalty, which involves no prosecution. The idea is to have a fixed penalty instead of being prosecuted. In that situation, if one does not have one's driving licence with one, and if it is an endorsable offence, the policeman cannot tell at the roadside whether a fixed penalty is appropriate, or what the fixed penalty should be, until the licence is produced. For all he knows, there may be sufficient endorsements on the licence already to affect greatly what is available in respect of this offence.
352
It is that matter that this Bill is dealing with and the arrangements for England and Wales in respect of this matter are that the police can give—if you have your licence with you—in respect of an endorsable offence, a fixed penalty notice at the roadside. If you do not have your driving licence with you, in England and Wales you can go to a police station within five days and the police at that station, assuming the circumstances are appropriate, will be able to give you a fixed penalty notice in accordance with the English system. But if you are a person who wished to nominate a Scottish police station for that purpose, there would be difficulty that the Scottish police are not equipped to deal with that aspect of English procedure.
The only consequence would be this. Instead of having a fixed penalty in that situation, assuming you were entitled to it, the only difference between your situation in Scotland and your situation in England and Wales is that in Scotland you would write to the court pleading guilty and sending your licence with the letter. The court would then deal with the matter without the restriction necessarily of a fixed penalty: and the penalty the court imposes might be more or less than the fixed penalty. For example, if you were able as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Paget, would be well able to do, to write a very good explanation of why you committed the offence, the court might well consider some figure much lower than a fixed penalty to be appropriate; so it is by no means clear that you would be worse off by writing a letter to the court than having a fixed penalty.
Lord Mishcon: I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Underhill to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his patient and very clear explanation, which we will obviously be studying with great care. It has elucidated a lot of problems that we had and it seems that many of them, if not all, have been ironed out. It seems to me that we are using this discussion rather usefully to cover the whole procedure of the fixed penalty notice, whether in the midst of the fogs that beset the highlands or lowlands of Scotland or whether south of the Border. Therefore, I do not ask for the forgiveness of the Committee if I try to finish off some of the problems regarding the form of the fixed penalty notice, as well as some of the problems we discussed last time in the absence of the noble and learned Lord. That means we can deal with these questions now, so that we need not waste time later.
One of the problems I tried to put to the Committee last time, it now appears fairly unnecessarily, was the case of what I called the "discretionary endorsement". I then said that an injustice might be perpetrated if indeed the fixed penalty notice were given in a case where a motorist would thereupon have the rather unpleasant task of having to go to the police officer and say to him: "I have considered what you have just said and I think I had better take the fixed penalty notice, because in the court itself I might receive an endorsement". That is what I call the discretionary endorsement.
May I say quite frankly that that difficulty has now been ironed out, because I have been told categorically that there are no offences in respect of which a fixed

353
penalty notice can be given where anything but a non-endorsable offence is involved—in other words, it cannot be enforced at all—or the obligatory endorsable offence. If that be so, the particular injustice I was frightened of will not arise under this Bill.
However, one other point arises out of the same problem that I should like to dispose of, if the noble and learned Lord could deal with it for me. It is this. There are certain cases under the Road Traffic Act where there is a mandatory endorsement—what we call the obligatory endorsement—but where, so far as I understand it, the driver can, though perhaps in rare cases, plead special reasons, in which event the court will not endorse, if it accepts the plea. Therefore, this seems to make us concentrate injustice upon what the driver will be informed by the police officer or by very clear wording on the form in the event of his being found to have committed an obligatory endorsable offence, but in circumstances where there might be special reasons which he could advance to a court in order to prevent the endorsement taking place.
Under the procedure we have at the moment, it all appears to be very simple, but possibly carrying this ingredient of injustice. The licence is seen; the offence is an obligatory endorsable one; the fixed penalty notice is issued and the licence is duly endorsed without any question, since it is only the court that can consider this matter of special reasons being considered at all or, if I may use the word, of their being "considerable" at all. What notice is the driver going to be given? Will he be told that he could, if he wanted to, go to the court? One must bear in mind that the driver will not necessarily be an expert on the Road Traffic Act and may not know of this right. What will he be told about the right that he has in regard to the fixed penalty notice, that if he wanted to go to court he might stand the chance of pleading special reasons and not have an endorsement in his case? If we can clear out of the way that last hit of possible injustice, the Committee will be saved a great deal of time on further discussion about this matter. At the moment, it appears to be a very important point.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I should first like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said: if one accepts the fixed penalty notice in this type of case he has been describing, then the licence will be endorsed. So a driver who commits an endorsable offence, and wishes to argue that there are special reasons in his particular case for non-endorsement, will require not to accept the fixed penalty notice, and go to court. Of course, once a person gets a fixed penalty notice, he has time to consider his position and take advice about it. So far as Scotland is concerned, the amendment which I am dealing with just now provides that the maximum penalties for the offence, apart from the fixed penalty, will be specified in the case to which the amendment relates. So if the motorist reads, he will see the provision about disqualification, unless there are special reasons.
So far as England and Wales are concerned, I do not think there is any statutory provision at the moment which imposes any particular form on the notice which would carry a requirement to have this particular intimation on it. I think this is perhaps a matter
354
that we would like to consider. The option is either to put the whole case law on the notice or to put some cautionary words advising the person who gets the notice before he decides what to do with it to take professional advice.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord and I am especially grateful to him for recognising the difficulty and the possible injustice that might be involved. I am delighted to accept the suggestion that this might be considered by the Government between now and Report stage. I would ask only that those who are particularly interested in my point should receive in good time a copy of any letter which is being issued in regard to this matter so that we can consider whether it would be helpful or otherwise to put down an amendment at Report stage.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Certainly we will do what we can to respond to that.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: May I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate this question. Is not the assurance that he has just given us a repetition of that assurance which my noble friend Lord Avon gave us when we were discussing Amendment No. 20, that of the police constable having to provide the motorist with a notice of his intention to award a fixed penalty before he proceeded further in the matter? My noble friend at that time said, "At one time we were inclined to accept this kind of amendment, but there are certain legal difficulties", and the department wanted to have another look at it.
Unless something is firmly established in the Bill, either along the lines of Amendment No. 20 or perhaps in the more generalised terms which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is suggesting, we will find that the fixed penalty will be accepted and upon that will be written the rights of the individual, which include that of refusing it within a certain number of days and going to court. If the former does not obtain, the latter most certainly will. So a good deal of the purpose behind the fixed penalty system, that of relieving the courts of responsibilities in this matter, will be lost. So it is not just a question of my noble and learned friend looking at this matter; it is really a question of him, and indeed my noble friend Lord Avon, finding a way to introduce into the Bill this cautionary procedure before the fixed penalty is offered, or it could just fall apart at a later stage.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I would think that the point which was raised on Amendment No. 20, and in respect of which my noble friend Lord Avon gave an undertaking in that discussion, is a slightly different point from the one with which I have just been dealing. So far as I understand the point my noble friend has put to me, the fact that one has an option after one gets the fixed penalty notice is not damaging to the system, because what we are expecting is that the vast majority of people who get a fixed penalty notice will after due consideration make use of it. It is that which eliminates the substantial burden on the courts which we are trying to eliminate. So long as the person has an understanding of what his rights are after he gets the

355
fixed penalty notice and, in the period when he is considering whether or not to accept it, that would appear to be sufficient.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Rail: Industrial Dispute
3.43 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the current industrial action on the railways.
"In the face of the continuing strike imposed by the executive of ASLEF against the new work rosters firmly recommended by Lord McCarthy's tribunal, the British Railways Board have within the last two hours announced that they will be forced to close the railway system down from next Wednesday unless there is a substantial return to work by the drivers.
"All those on strike on the previous day will be dismissed. At the same time they will be offered re-employment on the same terms, provided only that they agree to work to the new rosters.
"The decision to which the British Railways Board have been driven are clearly very grave. The strike which has caused them is a pointless one which should never have been called and should and could easily be lifted even now by the ASLEF executive.
"The McCarthy Railway Tribunal has left no doubt that flexible rostering should now be adopted by ASLEF, with no less than 13 safeguards, as it has been by the rest of those working on the railways to their clear benefit. The British Railways Board has all along been willing to discuss details of how the new rosters should be brought in and ways of making the change as easy as possible for engine drivers.
"Their proposals to this end were met with the blunt response by the ASLEF executive of an all-out strike call, although having pulled this trigger the ASLEF executive then suggested further talks, but still with no clear commitment whatsoever to any change in principle.
"The board have informed me that their further offer of constructive ways on which flexible rostering could be applied, once ASLEF have lifted their strike and accepted the principle, has again been rejected by the ASLEF executive in the last 24 hours.
"Mr. Speaker, the path ahead for the railways of this country is now very dark. Vast resources are
356
being bled away. Thousands of jobs could disappear for good. Travellers and holiday makers are being caused much bitter misery and suffering.
"Those who call this unnecessary strike, as well as those who have given comfort and succour to the strike, carry an immense and direct responsibility for all this damage and all this suffering.
"It remains in the hands of the ASLEF executive to call a halt to the destruction. And it is the duty of all those who believe the public should be protected and the railways and those who work in them saved from disaster, to urge the executive of ASLEF to desist from their futile course".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. If allowed to continue, of course, this would be a national disaster, not only the effect on the travelling public, on industry and the future of British Rail, but also the wellbeing of all workers of all unions employed by British Rail. It is a tragedy that it should happen, especially as 18 months ago the British Rail Board and the unions were working in close harmony on the development plan for the years 1981 to 1985.
Does the Minister recognise that men as responsible as locomotive drivers are do not lightly take action of this kind without believing in their own minds that they have a rightful cause? The McCarthy Tribunal Decision 77 clearly recommends rostering, but the tribunal said that there is nothing in the report that should be used to impose things on any people, and I am certain noble Lords will agree that what must be avoided is an embittered workforce for the future. As was said on the last Statement presented to your Lordships, agreement was very near, including experiment rostering as put forward by ASLEF. There was an opportunity, if the Secretary of State had asked both sides to get together, to try to bridge that difference. It would be unwise for any words to be used which, even at this stage, may prevent a possible settlement.
Is the noble Lord aware that Mr. Michael Foot and Mr. Albert Booth, the Opposition spokesman on transport, have this morning been to the ASLEF headquarters, and my information is that they have worked out a formula. My information is that they are now presenting this formula to the chairman of the British Rail Board, and up to the time that I was presented with the Statement they had not returned from that meeting. We can only hope that will be successful.
We would query why the Government and the Secretary of State have stood aside from what could be a national tragedy, and if what I have just reported proves to be correct it is to be hoped that the Secretary of State will not stand aside if a little movement by him could bring a settlement to what otherwise would be a national disaster.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for repeating the Statement. The situation is, indeed, a grave one, as the Statement says. It is one in which, in our view, the long-term interests of the community must prevail, and to that end we feel bound to support the British Rail Board in their decision to give

357
ASLEF drivers notice of dismissal and other employees notice that the rail system will be closed if there is not now a sufficiently widespread and speedy return to work. Are the Government aware that in our view settlement of this long-running dispute should now be reached only on terms which will ensure that the long overdue improvement in productivity that lies at its heart is actually achieved?
I have only one specific question to ask the Minister and it relates to the suspension of the guaranteed week agreement. Is the period of one week's notice, referred to in the Statement, such that in the light of British Rail's cash position no insurmountable legal obstacles will arise to frustrate the board's decision? Finally, on behalf of my noble friends, I should like to join in entreating the ASLEF executive to authorise the drivers to resume their duties in this essential public service.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for what they have said and for the restrained way in which they have made their comments. I hope that I shall deal with the matter similarly. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether it was recognised that men do not lightly take action of this kind unless there is due cause. This clearly would not be the moment for me to go over the background as to how one comes to this position at present, after so long a period of negotiations. However, I think that the noble Lord would also accept from me that the Board, too, are responsible people who recognise their obligations to the country as a whole, and therefore I trust that that is equally important in this whole unhappy situation.
The noble Lord said that it is important to avoid an embittered workforce, and of course I agree with him. I think he would also agree with me that it is important that at the end of the day there should not be an embittered public who feel that they have been dealt with very badly in this whole matter. What the noble Lord has told me about his honourable friends Mr. Michael Foot and Mr. Albert Booth is something of which I had heard, but on which I have no more information than he does and, therefore, I cannot make any observation on it.
On the last point which he made about the Government standing aside, I think that I ought to repeat what I said yesterday on that matter when I was answering a Question on this subject; namely, that the Government feel very strongly that it would be quite wrong to intervene. It is for British Rail and their workforce together to settle this matter. The fact is that we must recognise that the Board are striving to change outmoded working practices in an effort to create a modern and efficient railway industry that can best serve the needs of the nation, and the Government fully support their efforts.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for his helpful observations. As regards the one question which he put to me concerning the legal aspect of what the board are doing and whether it might frustrate their intentions, all I would say at this moment is that they have obviously considered the matter very carefully. I understand that they are very sensitive to the point. The matter may well come back on to the table in due
358
course, but at the moment I would not be able to comment further without perhaps adversely prejudicing the line that they are taking.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we on these Benches regret that a Statement of this kind has to be made today. At the same time, we understand and support the decision taken by the British Rail Board in their endeavours to bring the railways system in the United Kingdom up to the modern standards that are observed in most European railways. I support the proposition that was made that we do not want an embittered workforce. Is the Minister aware that no one has done more to build the morale of the workforce in British Railways than their present chairman?
The Select Committee of 1976–1977 identified 40,000 jobs in British Rail that should go. In the five years that have elapsed, only 12,000 of those jobs have been shed. The decision of the British Railways Board today will mean an immediate saving in taxpayers' money of something like £29 million per week: £12 million in wages and £17 million in other costs. While a great deal has been said about the workforce and the public, there is another factor to be borne in mind in this situation; namely, the taxpayer. British Rail this year will lose £165 million on top of the £850 million public sector obligation, which is the payment for the non-economic lines—a total obligation on the taxpayer of £1 billion per year. Is the Minister aware that that represents a very large slice of the available PSBR which must affect the claims of other important services in our community to a share of that cake?
We on these Benches would like to echo the sentiments of the spokesman from the Liberal Benches and very much welcome in the Statement the paragraph which says that once ASLEF have lifted their strike and accepted the principle of flexible rostering, the British Rail Board are ready today and prepared to enter into constructive dialogue.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I would simply like to say that I confirm the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has mentioned. They are figures which I, too, have, and I can only in the main agree with what the noble Lord says. I think that he, too, recognises the grave concern that there is on all sides. We want to see a solution.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, can the Minister give a practical answer to a question without saying that this is not a matter for the Government but a matter for British Rail? In the circumstances of the dismissal of the driver workforce—which is a possibility—and their subsequent re-engagement, can the noble Lord say how this will affect the pension rights of those men and subsequent redundancy agreements should that occur?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I could venture an opinion but frankly, if the noble Marquess will excuse me, I would prefer not to do so at this moment precisely because I think that, if I am right, it might not help the situation generally. I would prefer not to answer the point. Clearly this is one of the legal points which

359
I referred to in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, which the board obviously have in mind. There are implications all round. The noble Lord can be assured that the Board have this well in mind. I am sorry that at this moment I prefer not to try to give him a more detailed answer, and I hope that at present he will accept what I have said.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a very important point in terms of modern labour relations and an unembittered workforce?
Lord Bellwin: I entirely accept that it is a very important point and that is why I am absolutely certain that the board have it well in mind.
Lord Milford: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the mass media is not playing a fair part in this dispute? Would not there be less embitterment all round if the ASLEF point of view was put fairly at a mass meeting as well as the public's point of view?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the very last thing I shall do is make my own observations on what I think of the way in which the mass media is presenting this, or any other points if it comes to that. I would probably have to disagree with the point that the noble Lord made. I do not think that there is an unfair representation of that point of view, and I would have to say that. Beyond that, there is no way in which I shall enter into the debate.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that this might be a convenient moment for the House again to resolve itself into a Committee on the Transport Bill.

Transport Bill
4.2 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 62 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Provision for exclusion of fixed penalty procedures where fixed penalty notice mistakenly given.]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 44, line 42, leave out ("that section") and insert ("section 36 of this Act").
The noble Earl said: This very small amendment corrects a mistaken reference back. Specific reference to" proceedings for enforcing payment" of an enhanced unpaid fixed penalty is to be found in Clause 36, not Clause 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 63, 64, 65, and 66 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Fixed penalty offences confined to Scotland.]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 75, leave out lines 27 and 28.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I draw the Committee's attention to this second list of fixed penalties in Schedule 2. Lines 27 and 28 set out an offence under the 1972 Act of driving with uncorrected defective eyesight. Whatever one may think about the inclusion of separate fixed penalty offences which are confined purely to Scotland, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend whether there is any justification for the inclusion in this particular list of an endorsable offence, but one which is not regarded as a fixed penalty offence in England and Wales.
The Committee may recall that in June last year, during the Committee stage of the 1981 Act, we spent some time talking about the seriousness of driving with defective eyesight. It is surprising to me that in this comprehensive list of some 30 additional offences for fixed penalty, something which your Lordships thought last year was of a very serious nature is apparently less serious in Scotland in that it warrants an alternative and lesser penalty than it does in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment, especially with regard to line 28. I know someone who has been asked to produce evidence of his date of birth; in other words, to produce his birth certificate. Over a week ago he wrote to St. Catherine's House for a copy of his birth certificate. There was no reply. He wrote again, and still received no reply. Then he telephoned and a very sleepy girl said: "I do not know much about that, but I will try to find out about it". He had to wait about 20 minutes, adding greatly to the cost of his telephone bill. She then said:" We will make it an urgent case; I will put an urgent' tab on it and you should get your birth certificate within three weeks". If you are suddenly asked to furnish evidence of your date of birth—presumably your word is no good; it has to be a birth certificate as I read this—if the bureaucracy cannot produce it quicker than that, who is to blame? Is the individual to blame, or is the system to blame? It certainly seems to be unfair on the individual.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The amendment which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has moved is an amendment to delete lines 27 and 28 from Schedule 2, which will have the effect—and the effect only—of deleting the enactment Section 91(1), and the description of the offence of "driving with uncorrected defective eyesight". In other words, he is not seeking to amend the provision dealing with failure to furnish the Secretary of State, when required, with evidence of date of birth.
However, in answer to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, the effect is that Section 104(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 creates an offence of the kind which is there described, and the mere fact that it is in the schedule dealing with it as a fixed penalty offence does not really affect that. But I

361
can assure my noble friend that the procurator fiscal in Scotland would certainly exercise his discretion if a matter of this kind was reported to him, if the failure was not a failure of the individual himself but some failure on the part of the bureaucracy, to which my noble friend referred. In other words, if someone has a reasonable explanation for what he has done, the fiscal is perhaps the best person to go to, because he is accustomed to dealing with that sort of thing and adjudicating upon it. He has a fairly strong discretion and he is not afraid not to prosecute where he thinks that that is the correct decision to take.
On the amendment, I do not think that it is a correct assumption that because that offence occurs in Schedule 2, it is regarded as less serious in Scotland than it would be in England. As I sought to explain, the reason for Schedule 2 was that in Scotland we have the procurator fiscal, who has experience of exercising discretion at a fairly high level with very considerable protection of independence. An offence of this kind would be reported to him and it would be up to him to decide whether or not to prosecute. He would have the responsibility of conducting the prosecution and deciding about the evidence.
This schedule is constructed on the basis of the recommendations of the Stewart Committee—to which I have already referred—that committee having been set up by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and the then Lord Advocate, to consider the matters which it had in its terms of reference. One of them was to consider for what offences it might be appropriate for the procurator fiscal to have discretion to issue or to offer a fixed penalty. Looking at all the possible offences and having regard to all circumstances of the procurator fiscal's office and so on, the committee concluded that this was a suitable offence to include in the list. It does not mean that in every case of this sort the procurator fiscal will, in fact, offer a fixed penalty. That will depend on all the circumstances—for example, the consequences in the particular case of this particular breach of the law—and so on. Therefore, I think that I can reasonably assure my noble friend Lord Lucas that the fact that this offence is in this schedule will not in any way signify that it is not considered a serious offence and one which requires to be dealt with adequately under the law.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I must say that I do not find that explanation very satisfactory. I might add to my noble and learned friend that I do not propose to go further with this matter—at least not this afternoon. It seems to me that, on the one hand, one is trying to move to a simpler system of penalty enforcement with regard to motoring offences. It might perhaps be fairly useful if I now speak to my later amendments on the schedules so that we do not have to go through the whole thing again.
We have a position here which certainly a year or two ago we thought, as regards defective eyesight, was a very serious offence. We have moved this, by inclusion in Schedule 2, into an area that offers a lesser penalty than hitherto. In other words, by definition the offence is reduced. It need not be, but by its very inclusion it is reduced.
362
I find the whole of Schedule 2 something of a nonsense. Unless we want a lot of divisions between one side of the border and the other—and I do not think that any of us wants that—I cannot see why, since Schedule 1 contains about 40 offences which can be dealt with by fixed penalties common in England Wales and Scotland, but which are going to be dealt with offences. They are the same kind of offences which would arise from a breach of the law in England, Wales and Scotland, but which are going to be dealt with in this way because of the explanation that my noble and learned friend has given.
These two schedules arise because the Stewart Committee reported on alternatives to prosecution in Scotland in 1980, and they suggseted this list. The Inter-Departmental Working Party on Road Traffic Law, which reported in 1981, produced another list, which is Schedule many of the items became Schedule 2 by virtue of this arrangement. No clear reason is given other than it is more convenient for the fiscal to deal with these matters because they do not have the same arrangemnets within the police station itself for dealing with a fixed penalty notice.
It is far better that offenders in England, Scotland and Wales should be given the same opportunities. I understand what my noble and learned friend says; they are not meant to be separated, but it is rather more convenient for the Scots to be separated. On the one hand if the Scots are apprehended transgressing the law in England, they can either plead guilty and hope that the fiscal will deal with them lightly by issuing a fixed penalty, or he might even take them off to court. something which we do not have in England. On the other hand, we get an opportunity of a fixed penalty for certain offences, 40 of them, and the Scots get an additional 30. To me it just does not seem common sense or practical.
It does not seem reasonable, either, that because a particular system is set up one part of a nation should enjoy greater benefits, on the one hand, or fewer, on the other. I do not find that my noble and learned friend's answer is satisfactory, although I have little doubt that it is perfectly accurate. I find it a totally unsatisfactory position.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Underhill: May I briefly support the general tenor of Lord Lucas's remarks, and not necessarily support the deletion of Schedule 2, which is one of his later amendments, because that would bring complications. I appreciate the points that are made about Scots law being different. The last thing I would wish to do is to cause cross-border difficulties. But an issue might be satisfactory if it is something that is being dealt with for the Scots alone, but this will not be for the Scots alone. It will be for the people of England and Wales who may be visiting Scotland. Therefore, it affects people other than Scots. Even though it may not be possible to deal with it in this Bill at this time, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether it is not possible for Ministers to get together, for those responsible for that report to get together, so that on these issues of traffic law and regulations we can at least have some common treatment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: If the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, happened to get involved in one of the offences listed in Schedule 2—and I sincerely hope that he does not on his forthcoming Scottish holiday—he would, because we have the system of a procurator fiscal, be able to have that dealt with without any inconvenience of court. Now why, because we have that system, should we make use of it simply because in the particular arrangements available in England that possibility does not exist? It does not mean any injustice. It just means that if you happen to be in Scotland you can be dealt with in this particular matter more conveniently than happens to be the case in England.
Schedule 1 offences are offences in which the police can give a fixed penalty, and that applies north and south of the border. The reason for Schedule 2—the extra offences so far as Scotland is concerned—is that these offences are of a kind which the Stewart Committee thought the procurator fiscal could reasonably deal with. It does not suggest that they are any less serious, or that the penalty that he gives will be less than it would be if it went to court, as I explained in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton. The penalty in court might be more, or less, depending on the eloquence of the advocate and the circumstances as the court saw them.
It is simply a convenience to avoid the necessity in the appropriate case of the person who happens to transgress in Scotland going through the court procedure. That has the great benefit of saving the court time, occupying the court with matters which should not concern it, because the person who is being dealt with is perfectly satisfied to be dealt with by the fixed penalty that the procurator fiscal has offered him. May I correct one thing. I said earlier that the Stewart Committee was appointed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I was giving it slightly too long a parentage. I think it was his right honourable successor, Mr. Millan, who had that particular honour.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am glad to dissociate myself from the parentage of the Stewart Committee, but not from the findings of the Stewart Committee. It must be terrible for English Peers to find that we have an entirely separate, not legal system alone, but way of dealing with the law. Simply because the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is troubled that we have this advantage, that we have somebody who is independent of Government and indeed independent of the judiciary, who is concerned with prosecutions in Scotland, he suggests that we should forget all about that when it comes to traffic offences.
If we can deal with these matter much more expeditiously because of our traditional form of dealing with legal matters in Scotland, then why should we be denied it just to get some uniformity with the primitive English? I am glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at least stuck up for the Scottish legal system. We are not going to dispense with it.
Noble Lords had the solution to this in their own hands. They decided they wanted to retain control of all Scottish legislation here in England. There was a devolution Bill. Tomorrow this place will be crowded with English Members when we are dealing with a Scottish Local Government and Planning Bill. They
364
will all be here because they can insist that it should be dealt with here in London. I am looking forward to that, and I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be here as well to put his point of view and his thoughts on Scottish local government, and the rest of it. But the one thing that makes it possible to have a measure of devolution in Scotland is that we have a different legal system and a different administration of justice and courts administration in Scotland. Long may that continue, and it is about time people in England realised that unlike English areas—unlike even Wales—we have had it for centuries and we intend to continue it.
It was one matter that was in the Act of Settlement; the treaty said that the Scottish legal system should continue, and it has. To suit the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the desire of my noble friend Lord Underhill for uniformity there is no reason why we should in this case be denied the benefit of dealing much more expeditiously with the 30 listed offences.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that I have no wish whatever to impose my will on the Scots, in lawful or any other matters, and I said at the outset that I was not proposing to take the amendment further. I moved it because I wanted an explanation, which is surely not an unreasonable request to make of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I admire some of the differences that obtain in Scotland, particularly in regard to property transactions—they have a far more sensible way of dealing with such matters—but, having heard the explanation given by my noble and learned friend, I assure Lord Ross that I have no intention of raising the matter again tomorrow.
One of those people who examine Bills and amendments has suggested to me, however, that my noble and learned friend's explanation may not be correct if one considered a rather absurd case, that of a straying dog wandering without a lead on a designated road in Berwick on Tweed. That could result in the owner being in trouble under the 1972 Act as reflected in Schedule 2 of this measure. If it were on the Scottish side of Berwick on Tweed, it could be dealt with by way of a fixed penalty.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It might be.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to the noble Lord; it might be dealt with in that way, and most probably it would be. However, if it happened on the English side, it could not be so dealt with. It would have to go to court. I find that odd, but perhaps I had better just leave it there, regarding it as being odd, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.68:
Page 76, line 42, at end insert ("which is, by virtue of section 26 or 40 of this Act, a fixed penalty offence").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this. I bee to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Transport Act 1981.
Speeding Offences
. In Part II of Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1981, the following words are deleted:

"Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 s. 78A.

Exceeding a speed limit

3"

and the following words are substituted:

"Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 s. 78A(1).

Speeding offences under the 1967 Act and other Acts except those dealt with by fixed penalty notice.

2–3"

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 s. 78A.

Speeding offences under the 1967 Act and other Acts dealt with by payment of a fixed penalty.

2"")

The noble Lord said: I return to matters we have discussed on innumerable occasions, notably last year and earlier in this Bill's Committee stage. This amendment is another and further attempt to move to a simplification of the system of penalties—to move further towards a system of differentiating between the serious and less serious offence, or between the more serious and what I have been pleased to call in previous debates the technical offence.
As your Lordships will see, I have suggested that we remove the penalty for exceeding a speed limit, which carries endorsable penalty points of an obligatory nature (three of them) and transfer that into two groups. One is of speeding offences other than those dealt with by a fixed penalty notice, giving an obligatory points endorsement of either two or three; if they are not dealt with under a fixed penalty notice they will go to court, where the magistrates will determine the seriousness or otherwise of the offence and the seriousness of the penalty that should be awarded. On the other hand, there is an inclusion in the amendment that where speeding offences will be dealt with by a fixed penalty, there should be a lesser obligatory endorsement, that of two points. The new clause, if accepted, would represent a halfway house towards the ideal system of a two-tier fixed penalty offence system. From our discussions recently, the Government are disinclined to remove a number of offences totally from the endorsable points system, letting them rest, alternatively on a fixed penalty, or court proceedings—a normal prosecution—with all the panoply of penalty that might result.
I believe there has been, last year and in the proceedings on this measure, a general feeling that there should be a differential punishment for what one might call the technical offence—that offence which is not desperately serious, dangerous or reckless—the kind of offence that a policeman at the roadside or when apprehending an alleged offender would decide there and then, "This is obviously not a court matter". We know in practice that that happens already. Somebody may be stopped and the policeman asks if he is in a hurry, where is he going, why and so on, and at the end of all that he may just say, Let this be a warning to you. Take more care and go rather more slowly in future". We know that happens, and it is very good. It reminds one of the 1930s "courtesy cops who did so much good.
Why cannot we accept something of that nature, which is the halfway house? That is all it is. In any event, there is power in the 1981 Act to alter the point system, to add and remove offences, and my amendment goes some way towards jogging some activity under that provision. I do not think I need say more, except that I believe that where we are having to step up the enforcement of the law in regard to traffic offences, it is no bad thing—I said this on Friday morning—to offer a carrot as well as thumping the motorist with a stick. I suggest that my amendment carries an element of carrot with the stick attached. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for explaining his amendment with such clarity. His proposal is that instead of three penalty points being given for a speeding offence, whether it is dealt with by fixed penalty or in court, two points should be given if it is dealt with by fixed penalty and two or three points if it is a court case. As such, the proposal is a much less radical departure from our own proposals than was the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 26.
On the one hand, it has the attraction of providing a further incentive to the motorist to accept a fixed penalty, and not take his case to court. But, on the other hand, it represents a further relaxation of the effect of endorsement for this particular group of offences. Your Lordships' Committee will recall that at present a person is liable to be disqualified after three speeding offences. When the new points scheme is introduced he will, with three points for the offence, be able to commit four offences before being liable; and that is already a relaxation. Under my noble friend's proposal it will be possible for him to commit six offences at two points per time before that happened. I must ask the Committee to consider whether we are not in danger of carrying relaxation a little too far, and perhaps too fast.
I should also draw the Committee's attention to the argument that if a court can award two or three points, people will surely want to take the opportunity to argue that they should be awarded two, rather than three, points. As the noble Lord is aware, that would not make the system much simpler. Furthermore, I have a slight feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, might not like it very much, since surely a motorist would be tempted to accept a two points penalty fixed fine straight away, since if he went to court he could risk being awarded three points. As was mentioned in discussion on earlier amendments, we should want to avoid that kind of situation.
I think that my noble friend is trying to introduce into the points system a degree of fine tuning which, quite frankly, is too complicated. He has to convince your Lordships' Committee that the present legislation is wrong; in fact that the legislation which your Lordships passed last year is wrong. I feel that he must find that rather difficult to do, since the points system does not come into effect until this October, and I believe that we really should give the 1981 Act a fair trial before we start tinkering with the details in the way proposed. My noble friend said, I think, that he would like to jog my right honourable friend's

367
memory on the point that under a provision of the 1981 Act he is able to change the points count, but I believe that we must give the system a chance to come into effect before we start trying to change it.
Lord Gisborough: I wish very briefly to support the amendment. Undoubtedly, in regard to speeding offences there is a significant difference between the motorist who drives at high speed and the motorist who is just over the speed limit, and obviously that point is not recognised with the single three-points penalty system. There are also considerable differences among the attitudes of both police forces and individual officers in them as to whether to insist on imposing penalty points or an on-the-spot fine, or, as often happens, to let off the motorist with only a warning. I believe that there is a very good argument for the variable penalty points system. There is no argument against it. If there were to be an argument against it, it must also apply to variations that are accepted in other parts of the Bill.
The Earl of Avon: I wonder whether my noble friend has really studied the penalty points system which your Lordships passed last year.
Lord Underhill: I, too, wish briefly to support the amendment. I supported the principle of it last year, and I also spoke on it on the second day of the Committee stage, in relation to another amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. So, obviously, I do not intend to change my attitude within a short period. It is not so much a question of waiting to see how the points system works. Rather, it is a question of whether or not all speeding offences deserve three points. We know that there are a number of types of speeding offence that are very serious, but there are other types that are purely technical. I do not suppose that there is a noble Lord in the Chamber who does not share that view. A motorist might build up four or five sets of points, yet each set might arise from a mere technical offence that has caused no danger at all to anyone.
Noble Lords have given examples of occasions when they have been pulled up. I remind the Committee of what I said 12 months ago. I have had only one speeding offence. It occurred at half an hour past midnight, on a dry road, with a glorious moon shining. There was no one on the road apart from myself. There was a 40 miles-an-hour limit and a de-restriction sign half a mile ahead. I was doing 46 or 47 miles-an-hour, causing no danger to anyone at all. On the other hand, a motorist might do 35 miles-an-hour in an urban area—a really serious offence. Therefore, I believe that there is a sound case for looking at what the amendment proposes. Perhaps the Minister cannot accept it in its present form, but I urge that serious consideration be given to it at sometime.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his continued support for the principle that is underlined by the amendment. I would say to my noble friend Lord Avon that currently, until October of this year, (as he said), the motorist is permitted only three convictions for speeding before disqualification. After October under
368
the three-points system, he will have four chances before disqualification. I do not disagree with that.
My noble friend suggested that if my amendment were accepted, there would be a great degree of relaxation, since a motorist could commit six offences before disqualification. My noble friend stated that the motorist would take the option, but I would point out that he might not even have the option, because the alternative has not yet been offered. What the motorist has is an option to accept an offer of a fixed penalty with, if my amendment were accepted, the lower endorsable points value. However, so far as I understand the position—and I think I understand it—the constable is not obliged to offer a fixed penalty. He might say to the motorist, "You have exceeded the speed limit, and I am going to report you for prosecution. Kindly show me your licence, insurance, and other documents". The motorist goes to court; and so there is not necessarily a relaxation.
The amendment would mean that the policeman would have to make a decision. He would have to ask himself, "Do I go for the heavier course of taking the motorist to court, or do I let him off with a warning, or do I impose a slightly lesser fixed penalty which carries two endorsable points"? I think that that is perfectly reasonable.
My noble friend stated that the 1981 Act is not yet in force, and that we should give it a chance. But why give it a chance if it is no good? I have said repeatedly during discussions on the Bill—and I shall probably say it again today—that the department thinks along the same tram lines all the time; it cannot move outside of them. The amendment might have some imperfections, but I believe that if your Lordships' Committee were to accept it, that would demonstrate to Her Majesty's Government and the department that we want more flexible thinking and a far wider range of options and opportunities. Therefore, I ask your Lordships' Committee whether it will express its view on the matter.
4.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 69) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 66.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cross, V.

Ampthill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Annan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ardwick, L.

Denington, B.

Avebury, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Aylestone, L.

Baker, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Balogh, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Banks, L.

Energlyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, I

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Bishopston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Blease, L.

Glenamara, L.

Blyton, L.

Gosford, E.

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Byers, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Caccia L.

Kimberley, E.

Chitnis, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

369

Kirkhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Listowel, E.

St. Davids, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.—[Teller.]

Strauss, L.

Tanlaw, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mais, L.

Teviot, L.—[Teller.]

Milford, L.

Underhill, L.

Milverton, L.

Walston, L.

Monson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Whaddon, L.

Oram L.

White, B.

Peart, L.

Willis, L.

Plant, L.

Wise, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.—[Teller.]

Alport, L.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Avon, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bellwin, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beloff, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cathcart, E.

Merrivale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mersey, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mills, V.

Daventry, V.

Mishcon, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Moyne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Northchurch, B.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles, V.

Polwarth, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Portland, D.

Faithfull, B.

Rochdale, V.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathspey, L.

Glenusk, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Vickers, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Windlesham, L.

Killearn, L.

Wynford, L.

Kilmany, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [False statement in response to notices to owner]:
4.47 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 50, line 40, leave out from ("knowledge") to end of line 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps T could speak to these three amendments, Nos. 70 to 72, together. These amendments remove a redundant reference to local authorities in Clause 44. Local authorities will not be involved in the notice to owner procedure under the Bill, and they will not receive
370
any evidence about false statements. I beg to move Amendment No. 70.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 51, line 6, leave out ("or the local authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 51, line 8, leave out ("or their").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Evidence in fixed penalty notice cases]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 73 to 76:
Page 51, line 19, leave Out ("sufficient").
Page 51, line 20, leave out ("unless the contrary is proved").
Page 51, line 28, leave out ("sufficient").
Page 51, line 30, leave out ("unless the contrary is proved").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 73 to 76 with Amendment No. 51. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 75 and 76 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agree to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Fixed penalty notice in Scotland]:
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As I explained, we have amalgamated this clause, and the result is that Clause 46 as printed in the Bill should be deleted. I therefore ask your Lordships not to allow this clause to stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Clause 46 disagreed to.
Clasue 47 [Jurisdiction of the district court in Scotland]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.77:
Page 53, line 23, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 25 and insert—
("(1A) Nothing in this section shall empower the district court in respect of any offence—

(a) to impose—

(i) a penalty of imprisonment which exceeds sixty days; or

(ii) a fine which exceeds level 4 on the standard scale; or

(b) subject to subsection (1B) below, to impose disqualification within the meaning of the 1972 Act.

(1B) Where a person is convicted in the district court of an offence referred to in subsection (1) above, being an offence involving obligatory endorsement,—

(a) the court shall order that particulars of the conviction shall be endorsed on any licence held by him in accordance with section 101 of the 1972 Act; and

(b) if the penalty points to be taken into account under section 19(3) of the Transport Act 1981 number twelve or more, the court shall order him to be disqualified under section 19(2) of that Act.").

The noble and learned Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amend-

371
ments Nos. 77 and 78 together. This amendment reformulates much of Clause 47(1) of the Bill. The purpose of that clause was to make fixed penalty offences, and offences in Schedule 2 to the Bill, triable, in Scotland, in the district court. The district court is the court which deals with the least serious criminal offences in Scotland, while the sheriff court and the High Court deal with more serious matters. The object of making these offences triable in the district court is to make the extended fixed penalty system in the Bill run as one with the existing parking fixed penalty system, which is operated in the district court.
The clause does not quite achieve its purpose, because, as drafted, it excludes fixed penalty offences which have a maximum fine of more than Level 4 on the standard scale—as introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill which your Lordships' House recently considered, which is intended to be £500. That does not catch all fixed penalty offences because one, breach of construction and use regulations involving a heavy goods vehicle, carries a maximum penalty of £1,000, by virtue of Clause 55 of the Bill. Further, other offences with a penalty greater than Level 4 could be included in Schedule I by order under Clause 28
It is obviously desirable that all fixed penalty offences should be triable in the same court, so that we can have a single unified fixed penalty system, and policemen and motorists do not have to follow one procedure for one offence and a different court procedure for another. The amendment therefore reformulates the clause so as to provide that all fixed penalty offences are triable in the district court; but in so doing it does not give that court any greater powers of punishment than it would otherwise have.
The amendment also seeks out the powers of endorsement and disqualification available to the district court under the Bill. At the moment, the district court has no such powers, and is not competent to deal with endorseable offences. The amendment would allow the court to endorse, and to disqualify on a totting-up basis, but not give it power of discretionary disqualification. This, I understand, is in accordance with the views of the Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace, chaired by the noble and learned Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Wheatley of Shettleston. More serious examples of these offences will continue to be prosecuted in the sheriff court, where the power of discretionary disqualification will still be available. As your Lordships will appreciate, it is ihe procurator fiscal who decides into which court the case should be taken. He has the power to discriminate between cases on the basis of the circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 53, line 28, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Supplementary provisions]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B:
372
Page 53, line 34, after ("notification") insert ("certificate").
Page 53, line 35, leave out ("(1) or (3)") and insert ("(1A) Or (1B)").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B when I moved Amendment No. 56A. I beg to move them en bloc.
Lord Mishcon: Purely as a matter of interest, if the noble Earl, will look at the clause and the line we are dealing with, the words used are "notice" or "notification". We are now putting in a certificate. Simply for clarity of language, what is the difference between a "notice" and a "notification"?
The Earl of Avon: As this refers back to one which is "pre" my present notes. I cannot satisfy the noble Lord at the moment; but I will find out.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that I have mentioned one of the most important points in the whole of the Bill. I am perfectly content to have a word with the noble Earl at any time hereafter in order to elucidate this extremely urgent point.
The Earl of Avon: Actually, if we read this back in Hansard we will find it under the description of No. 56.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 54, line 8, at end insert—
("(a) where a corporate body is the registered keeper of a vehicle the owner of that vehicle shall be taken to be the person given responsibility for that vehicle as certified in the prescribed form by an officer of that corporate body; and
(b").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment in connection with a series of other amendments which I withdrew. But I feel that the substance of the present amendment is of some significance and, before deciding how to proceed with the matter, I should like to know the views of the Government. In Clause 48(2) the owner is deemed to be the driver of the vehicle, although there is no doubt that it is the driver himself or herself who must be dealt with. In order to transfer responsibility from the owner to the driver, if they are not the same person, it is necessary for an statutory statement to be made in accordance with Part II of Schedule 3 and countersigned by the actual driver.
In the case of a company car, this should not be necessary. It should be sufficient for the company to indicate the employee responsible whether or not she or he signs a declaration and whether or nor he or she personally defrays the fixed penalty or fine. Unfortunately, a very high proportion of the vehicles which obstruct our highways are owned by corporate bodies and are being used by business purposes. This seems to add a degree of recklessness to the attitude of the drivers and it is this which my amendment seeks to remedy. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My noble friend Lord Teviot spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 23. I do not have any further points here to add. I can, of course, find out the answer to this particular amendment.
Lord Teviot: In that case, I will withdraw the amendment. I suppose that I should have given my noble friend notice a little earlier that I intended to bring this up. It was a separate point that was dealt with very briefly when we dealt with Amendment No. 23 and I think it is an important point. Perhaps I might put it down again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Interpretation of Part III]:
5 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 56, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
(""justices' clerk" means a clerk to the justices for a petty sessions area;
"magistrates' court" and "petty sessions area" have the same meanings as in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980; and").
The noble Earl said: This small amendment simplifies the definition of "justices clerk" at present contained in the Bill and adds definitions of "magistrates' court" and "petty sessions area". The second has become necessary because of the changes which have been made already in Clauses 35 and 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 56, line 24, at end insert (", but no such order shall prescribe as appropriate for discharge by traffic wardens functions under this Part of this Act which relate to moving traffic offences, nor shall any such order authorise a traffic warden who is in a moving vehicle to discharge functions.").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of this clause reads:
"In so far as an order under Section 81(3) of the 1967 Act authorises the employment of traffic wardens for the purposes of this Part of this Act references in this Part of this Act to a constable or, as the case may be, to a constable in uniform shall include a traffic warden.".
The amendment seeks to provide that any order referred to in this subsection shall not prescribe the use of traffic wardens on functions which relate to moving vehicles nor to a traffic warden who may be in a moving vehicle. As the fixed penalty system is to be extended to include endorsable offences, it is imperative that everything possible be done to preserve police public relations. The amendment wants to ensure that the situation is not aggravated by the use of wardens in relation to offences by moving vehicles. I should like to make it clear that I am not in any way disparaging wardens. They do a difficult job which is not always fully appreciated when one gets parking tickets. It is a difficult and necessary job. But it is a different job from that of a constable.
A similar amendment was brought forward in the Committee in the other place and the Minister rejected the amendment for various reasons. She said—and I am paraphrasing—that a number of offences in the fixed penalty system do not carry points but are moving traffic offences. The current shortage of wardens does not permit an extension of their duties. But, however,
374
she said, this should not shut off a provision which a future Govermnent may think it desirable to introduce and we should do nothing which will bind a successor Government. Also, there is provision for orders affecting the functions of traffic wardens to be scrutinised by both Houses. I am certain that noble Lords will appreciate that the affirmative procedure is useful, but the orders cannot be amended. One accepts them or rejects them. In my view, none of these reasons given by the Minister is sufficient justification for not accepting this amendment.
If a future Government wish to widen the functions of wardens, they should do so by primary legislation, not by a draft order with the affirmative resolution procedure. In support of the amendment, I should like to quote paragraph 38 of the inter-departmental working party on traffic law. It is headed "Police Action". It says:
"We do not consider that persons other than police officers should operate an extension of the fixed penalty system. The procedures involved, including stopping drivers and examining their documents, are suitable only for police officers to undertake especially since most of the offences concerned would be endorsable. There is a further important consideration that only police officers have discretion to caution a driver in lieu of any other action, and it is obviously right for this power to go hand in hand with an extension of fixed penalties".
In further support of that view, and of this amendment, the Minister, Mrs. Chalker, in Committee in another place—and this is from col. 1107 of Hansard for 27th April—said:
"I think that I gained the feeling of the Committee that we would all be against giving traffic wardens the power to issue a fixed penalty notice for endorsable offences".
Later, she said:
"… I shall consider what has been said because I share the natural feelings of any motorist about extending the duties of traffic wardens and would want there to be a full and proper debate before such duties were given to traffic wardens".
A little later she said:
"But I shall consider further what the honourable Member for Westhoughton and his colleagues and my honourable friends have said, although at present I do not wish to accept the amendment until I have reached further conclusions".
So it is pretty clear that the Minister was not averse to the general principle of this amendment. I believe in view of the departmental working party, the Statement by the Minister and the general view held on this, that the Government should feel fit to accept the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on this matter. It is wrong that somebody who has not had any correct training should do this. I have looked at Clause 26 which I feel covers this point. I wonder whether my noble friend will be able to assure me on this.
The Earl of Avon: The Committee are no doubt aware, and the noble Lord has said, that this issue was debated at some length in another place and they must forgive me if what I say has a familiar ring. The position in law at the moment is that the functions of traffic wardens are defined in the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, which is made under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1967. I must emphasise that nothing in the Government's proposals in the Bill is intended to alter the substance of these provisions.

375
What this amendment is seeking to do however, is circumscribe the discretion of Ministers to add moving traffic offences to the list of offences for which a warden may issue a fixed penalty notice. What I think noble Lords have in mind is that it would be undesirable—and everybody will agree—to allow wardens to issue fixed penalty notices for offences carrying points. I quite agree. Nothing could be further from the Government's intentions.
There are a number of moving traffic offences included in the fixed penalty system which do not carry penalty points. In the past it has been seriously considered whether it would assist the police to include these offences in the range of wardens' duties. These plans had to be shelved when it became apparent that manpower in the traffic warden service was declining, but it may be that in the future Ministers will again be in a position to make such a decision. It would seem unreasonable to prevent this.
By the same token, while it is not our current policy to change the existing constraint in the Functions of Traffic Warden Order on wardens discharging their functions from a moving vehicle, it may be that in the future Ministers might wish to look at this again.
My second reason for hoping that this amendment will not find favour applies to both parts of the amendment, and it is that it seems to me that there are already more than adequate safeguards and parliamentary control on the issue of what duties a warden should perform. The existing provisions ensure that any change to the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope this may satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, because it seems to me to get the right balance between allowing Ministers to decide on their policy in the light of current circumstances, and allowing the House to scrutinise, and if need be object to, what is proposed. My noble friend Lady MacLeod asked about Clause 26. In that clause a constable is referred to but a traffic warden may be regarded as a constable for the duties while he is empowered to carry them out. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, may be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I hope very much that my noble friend will not withdraw his amendment. This is an important point which the Committee are now considering. I should like to underline briefly what is involved. The House has been treated in the course of this Bill and in regard to other legislation—and there is no party political argument in this because I should be saying exactly the same, in a very humble way, if this were Government legislation and I happened to be sitting happily on the Government side.
This is the point that is involved: people drive very often as a matter of livelihood. People value their clean driving reputation even if they do not drive for a livelihood because they have a connection which they regard as a very reputable one with their insurers. People in neither of those categories value their driving reputation by virtue of the fact that they regard it as a social duty to be a good and careful driver and that people who are bad drivers with bad driving reputations are anti-social and are not
376
good citizens. So we have been very carful in our legislation to see that those who are in a position to impose a penalty upon a driver, which is one which affects his driving record, are our courts; and our courts are supposed to listen to the evidence, weigh it up carefully and come to a just conclusion, having done so.
Under this Bill we are giving greater powers—and I am glad that we are—to police constables. They are going to be allowed, in regard to matters which previously went before the courts, in respect of moving offences to say, "We think you have committed an offence: we are now in a position, though we were not before, to issue a fixed penalty notice, if you want it. If you do not want it I shall have to consider reporting you for a prosecution".
This is a matter of judicial decision which we are delegating to our police force, believing that they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said, trained for that purpose, trained to ascertain whether an offence has been committed and trained to be judicial in their approach. Like my noble friend Lord Underhill, I have nothing but admiration—except when they approach me in my personal vehicle—for traffic wardens. Obviously they do a most unwelcome task and very often have to put up with a lot of abuse. Very often they have to take that abuse on the chin, whether it is a male or female chin, and they are fulfilling a very necessary public purpose. But they have neither the training nor the ability very often, and it would be quite unjust to them—and quite unjust to the motorists—to impose upon them the duty of dealing with endorsable offences. It is all very well for Ministers to say, wherever they come from—and I repeat that there is no party argument about this at all—"This Government have got no intention, with this Minister, of giving traffic wardens the power or trying to make an order which would be subject to the affirmative procedure in regard to offences where endorsement is obligatory: there is no such idea in our heads".
I would have been a little more content if the Minister had said, "We are prepared to write into the Bill that no order will be made where any endorsable offence is under review". Not a bit of it: there was no such offer from the Minister at all, and I am not saying I would have been wholly content even with that, because there are quite serious offences which are not endorsable but which from some points of view may be regarded as serious to somebody who values his driving record. It is not good enough to say: "We will never do this except by order which is subject to the affirmative procedure". In this Chamber those words sound glorious, except to those who—I say this with the greatest respect—have become used to that procedure of both Houses of Parliament. There cannot be a debate on an affirmative motion in the other place without the Whips having decided that it is of sufficient importance to find time for debate. If there is no time found for debate, it goes through on the nod and Members of the other place find afterwards, very often to their great disquiet, that something has gone through about which they might have had quite a lot to say, given the opportunity.
In this Chamber the tradition is such that if you counted up the number of affirmative resolution debates in respect of statutory orders and instruments

377
where a Division was taken over the last century, you would be quite amazed to find how few there have been. On a Transport Bill, which those of us who are here think important—let us look round at this moment to see the number of people on all the Benches who are present considering an important clause of this nature—what would the likely attendance be if it were a question of an affirmative order, conferring the power on traffic wardens to enable them to issue penalty notices and adjudicate on moving vehicle offences and where it is not an ordinary "obstruction" matter to be dealt with?
I do ask noble Lords on all sides to see that this power is not given to a Secretary of State, whether it be by means of the affirmative procedure or not. I ask it in the name of justice and in the name of motorists who deserve to be treated fairly and, if I may put it in this way, I also ask it in the name of traffic wardens who I do not think would ever want to have this responsibility thrust upon them.
The Earl of Avon: I take very much to heart the force of the argument put forward by the noble Lord. I would be appreciative if we could look at this again to see whether we can move towards him in some way before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: With the concurrence of my noble friend Lord Underhill, I should like just to thank the noble Earl for his most gracious remark on the suggestion. I hope he will realise that I believe I am right in saying that there is a very definite feeling in all sections of the Committee on this matter. I hope he will be able to make a practical contribution, having heard the arguments put forward today.
Lord Gisborough: Before the noble Earl sits down finally, may I just ask him whether special constables come into the category of traffic wardens or of police regarding this particular aspect?
The Earl of Avon: I would imagine as constables.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before my noble friend leaves this completely, would he, when giving consideration to this matter, bear in mind that there seems in the country to be a general feeling that we do not want to move anywhere towards a dual force. The police generally are held in high regard. They are the enforcers of the law and it would be quite wrong to give another body equal or similar status.
I should like to mention one other factor. I have noticed in some cities a new group of people who look something like traffic wardens. The only difference that I can see is that, whereas a traffic warden wears a yellow band round the hat, this new group bear a blue band. I do not know what they are but it seems to me that if we are not very careful we are all going to end up—
Lord Mishcon: I do hope the noble Lord will not think me discourteous, but we have in front of us a very heavy agenda in respect of this Bill. The noble Earl has been gracious enough to say that he sees the force of the arguments put to him and that he will consider them if with a view to helping. Would it not be the
378
wish of the Committee—and I hope that I am not being too venturesome in saying this—that, having had that courteous assurance, we should now move on? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 49, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I make a comment on this clause, because I understand this is the last clause which deals with fixed penalty notices? I should like to ask my noble friend if he will take on board that in future when this Bill is implemented there should be a great deal of publicity given about fixed penalty notices. Those of us who have discussed it perhaps now understand it better than we did previously, but the general public have not had the opportunity of listening to our debate; nor perhaps have they had the opportunity of reading a great deal about them. Would it be possible to draw public attention to the fixed penalty notices fairly vehemently?—because they will not understand it unless the Government take a hand.
The Earl of Avon: I very much appreciate my noble friend's point and, of course, I will make sure that the Secretary of State has it well in mind.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Control of operating centres for goods vehicles on environmental grounds]:
5.20 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 58, line 2 at end insert ("and for the purpose of extending the right to object to or make representations against the grant or variation of such licences to certain authorities, other than local authorities, exercising planning functions").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 93. These amendments provide for amendment of Section 63 of the Transport Act 1968, extending the right to object to the grant or variation of operators' licences. Local authorities already have the right to object, by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 63. This amendment extends the right to other bodies, including the Lake District Special Planning Board, the Peak Park Joint Planning Board and Merseyside and London Docklands Development Corporations, who exercise planning functions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of Transport Act 1968 relating to operators' licences]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 81, line 20, leave out from ("prescribed") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: This amendment takes us into the somewhat emotive area of heavy lorries and where they operate. This amendment, which is to delete a number of lines on page 81 from Section 69C(2), is primarily to ensure that no undue emphasis is

379
placed on the conditions under which an operating centre may receive approval, because the whole question of an operating centre's approval has to be set out in regulations, which will in due course come before the House. In any event, they are subject, as always, to consultation with the various interested parties. It appears to me that it is undesirable, in the light of those regulations, that special emphasis should be put upon those conditions to which a licensing authority should pay regard.
This subject has been discussed on a number of occasions and Section 69 provides for environmental considerations to be taken into account by the licensing authority. I do not think there is anybody who disagrees with that. Certainly, none of the heavy goods vehicle associations, such as the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, disagrees with that. However, the environmental condition may be one which has not been brought about by the operator or by his choice of centre. It might be an environmental consideration brought about by some other aspect, notably planning.
A haulier or an operator of a heavy goods vehicle may have been operating out of a centre for some years, but planning permission is subsequently given and a new estate surrounds the centre. It could be that the environmental consideration is then brought to bear. This is probably quite a good thing and we shall be dealing with that aspect when I come to my next amendment. Nevertheless, it seems totally undesirable that these three points, which are set out in Section 69C(2)(a), (b) and (c), are singled out for mention in a Bill which, as I have said, will in any circumstances be dependent upon regulations.
As I understand the position, there was a commitment during Report stage in the other place that this part of the Bill would be looked at further. Certainly, the hauliers' interests were of the opinion that the Government might have tabled an amendment to satisfy them. In the event, it appears that they have not, or are unwilling to do so.
To emphasise the point, I should mention lines 30 and 31, which read:
"(c) the hours at which operations of any prescribed description may be carried on at any such centre".
That is a comparatively new one. Normally, the licensing authority has to pay due regard to a number of factors, some of which I mentioned on Second Reading. The licensing authority is now asked to consider the environmental conditions and one of the items which is set down, and which the Government feel is of considerable importance, is the hours at which operations may be carried on. This seems to put a very heavy emphasis on hours. What are reasonable hours? There is no definition of "reasonable"; it is just the hours".
If you have to make a delivery to a ship which is 150 or 200 miles away, it may be necessary to start at four o'clock in the morning. It may be necessary, for example, to make a collection from a farm. We discussed this point last year when my noble friend Lord Stanley talked about the pea harvest, where the big buyers demand picking and delivery, literally, at a few hours' notice. I am not suggesting that the hours should not be one of the many considerations of which
380
a licensing authority will have to take account. But I am suggesting that the inclusion in this Bill of these three conditions is unfair, and sets an unfair bias on what a licensing authority should do. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, the purpose of his amendment is to leave out three conditions which a licensing authority may attach to an operator's licence. We ought to look again at what the three conditions are, and I shall paraphrase them—the number, type and size of vehicles or trailers which may, at any one time, be at an operating centre; the parking arrangements provided at, or in the vicinity of, the operating centre and the hours at which operations may be carried out. I regard these as absolutely essential conditions. Without them, any talk of environmental control appears to make nonsense. I shall not weary the Committee by quoting from the Foster Committee's report on haulage operators' licensing or the Armitage Committee's report on lorries, people and the environment. But both of those reports recognise that environmental difficulties are associated mainly with places from which vehicles are operated. That view was confirmed by the Under-Secretary of State when this matter was dealt with in Committee in the other place.
The three conditions are almost, word for word, those proposed in paragraph 9.18 of the Foster Report. If these conditions are not attached, it could be that the licensing authority's only alternative might be to refuse a licence. I can readily understand the concern of the NFU, particularly where houses have been developed after the operating centre was established. On the other hand, there will be cases where an operator may have extended greatly since he was first established in that area. I can also understand the interests of operators, as reflected by the Freight Transport Association, who wish nothing to impede the essential movement of freight. With that I think we all agree. But I see that in Part II of the schedule, paragraph 4, there is a reference to right of appeal. When one looks at the Notes on Clauses which the department has kindly supplied we see:
"This paragraph extends the right of appeal by licence holders to the transport tribunal".
There is, therefore, an essential right of appeal now written into the Bill. That would be a safeguard for an existing operator. If conditions should affect an existing business, I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether there would be provision—I presume that the licensing authority would have the opportunity—for a period of adjustment or removal, or even the offer of alternative sites. We must keep in mind that we should not treat an existing operator differently from the way in which a licensing authority would intend to treat a new operator who wishes to come in. This is an essential requirement for which most people have waited for a long time. Those two important reports say that these are essential conditions. If we really want environmental control, to delete these conditions would make nonsense of it.
Baroness Denington: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will not press the amendment. I understand his concern on behalf of the operators, and I am sure that he is not without concern for the people

381
who may be affected. The Government are introducing conditions to protect the environment, which means to protect the living conditions of our citizens. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to the fact that the section with which we are dealing is permissive, not mandatory. The wording is "of such description as may be prescribed". The conditions where the descriptions which we are looking at now will probably be prescribed are those which, though not universal, are to be found in built-up areas.
I used to represent the constituency of Islington. It is a highly built-up area and contains a number of depots of this kind. Because it is an old area, they established their depots wherever they could—generally at the backs of houses where there was a bit of land—before planning control had any teeth. The hours specified in these conditions are very important. Lorries may want to start off at five o'clock in the morning, which means that men will be loading and calling out to one another and that the people round about will be unable to sleep. Therefore, it is vitally important to the people living in built-up areas that those conditions should specify the number of lorries, where they can park in that neighbourhood and the hours during which they can operate. I believe that the Government are absolutely right, therefore, to set this down fairly and squarely in the Bill.
If, however, we are considering a depot which has been developed in modern times on an industrial estate and which is therefore outside a built-up area, nobody will impose unreasonable conditions, for the simple reason that in those cases such conditions are unnecessary. They are necessary to protect people. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that as a GLC representative I have often been approached by constituents who are desperate because of what goes on in a depot at the back of their houses. Therefore, I hope that he will reconsider the matter and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: May I emphasise the overall aim of our proposals in Clause 50 and Schedule 4. What, precisely, is it that we are trying to do? It is to strengthen the powers of the licensing authorities and to enable them to take adequate account of environmental considerations in dealing with road haulage operators' licences. At present, the licensing system does not allow this, but we all know of the concern caused by the activities of operators with unsuitable facilities.
Our approach is to redefine the operating centre under a goods vehicle operator's licence as the place at which the vehicle is normally kept. This is in line with the position in regard to public service vehicle licensing. Operating centres will have to be specified in operators' licences and the grounds on which existing statutory objectors may object are extended to include environmental considerations. Owners or occupiers of land in the vicinity of a proposed operating centre are given a new right to make representations against the grant of an application on environmental grounds.
We recognise that existing operators might face difficulties under the new provisions when seeking to renew a time-expired licence if factors, not of their own making and over which they may have no control,
382
have arisen since the licence was first granted. It was therefore precisely to protect the legitimate interests of responsible hauliers that we included in the schedule a provision preventing a licensing authority from refusing an operator a new licence on environmental grounds, if there is no material change in the operations to be covered. The only exception to this rule will be considerations about parking arrangements.
We are proposing that in all cases the licensing authority should be empowered to attach conditions to a licence, for the purposes of preventing or minimising adverse effects on the environment where they arise from the use of the operating centre. These conditions will be prescribed in regulations, on which we shall consult widely, but I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is right that the Bill should give some indication of the most important conditions which would be prescribed. It is this that my noble friend Lord Lucas would remove with this amendment. We believe that the licensing authorities should have a power to attach conditions regulating the number, type and size of motor vehicles or trailers which may at any one time be at an operating centre. We believe that general guidelines can be developed which will be useful for operators contemplating the use of new sites and there may well be circumstances where, for example, small, rigid vehicles would be appropriate and large, articulated vehicles would not.
There is general agreement that parking arrangements can be one of the major problems concerning goods vehicles. It is quite within the capability of licensing authorities to say that, for example, lorries should not be parked down the road from an operating centre every weekend. I am sure the general public and many operators would welcome this sort of control.
So far as hours are concerned, this is an aspect of use of an operating centre which can cause serious difficulties for local residents. I see merit in licensing authorities being able to attach conditions which would help to minimise adverse effects on the environment in this respect, on a best practicable means approach and, not least, in discussions with the operator himself. The other point I wanted to make about hours is that the provision only gives a power. There may be cases where the power may be reasonably exercised as to hours and cases where it could not be so exercised. I believe we have talked that one through and that what we are proposing is right.
We have looked at Section 69(c) again and the commitment given in Committee in another place; this was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised. It has been discussed again with the industry associations. We have explained to them why we do not feel able to amend the section. Although they were disappointed, they were also pleased with the assurances we have given as to how the provisions will not be operated to prejudice existing operators. That is not what we are about; to make life more difficult. Quite to the contrary; we want to be helpful, but we feel that as far as this aspect of the Bill is concerned there is a problem. We believe it is right upon entering the new régime of licensing in this way that we should take into account something which, perhaps, has not always been taken into account in the past; namely, the environmental aspects of the particular type of licensing which we propose.

383
I hope that my noble friend will feel slightly more relaxed about this now, following my explanation and my absolute assurance to him and to others who are concerned about this matter in respect of our intentions. Before I sit down, I will deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he asked whether there would be any discretion. As he knows, the situations are very varied and individual cases will be dealt with on their merits. The traffic commissioners have great experience in these matters and I would be confident about the way in which they would work this.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that very detailed and interesting explanation. May I just comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. I have no wish whatsoever to impose a heavy goods vehicle operating sector in a situation which is totally and blatantly undesirable. I have no wish—and neither, I am sure, do any of my friends in that business—to operate from a place where we are not wanted; I apologise to the Committee for that appalling grammar.
I believe it is quite right in this day and age that the Government should introduce into a Bill of this kind measures which add some additional control. Where, as in the case mentioned by the noble Baroness, there were lorries in built up areas where no planning existed, one has to be very careful that one does not disturb or perpetuate—disturb the benefits of what are popularly described as "grandfather's rights", nor perpetuate those rights which are patently undesirable. That is perfectly fair. But I have to say to the noble Baroness that from my knowledge of the industry, industrial sites are not always the right answer to an operation of this kind. One cannot just say, "All this should go to an industrial site", or "Any new application for a haulage business shall go to an industrial site".
Turning to the remarks of my noble friend the Minister, I suggested during an earlier stage of this Bill that the cardboard box of licensing was now overfull and split, but that we were now putting more into it. I still hold to that view. That does not mean I do not accept what he was suggesting in regard to this matter. But if the licensing authority paid proper and due regard, according to the likes of this noble Lord, to certain of the conditions which have to be satisfied in regard to an operating sector, or indeed to an operator's licence, then much of what surrounds the need for this particular piece of legislation would not apply.
As my noble friend said, the Bill now prevents an application for renewal—and I take it that renewal means a variation as well as the ordinary five-year renewal—of an operator's licence from being refused on environmental grounds unless there has been a material change. What is a material change? The separate clauses now set down in the Bill allow the licensing authority to impose without any let or hindrance any kind of condition it makes. I feel that this might well be grossly unfair. The planning authority could quite easily abrogate their responsibility, saying, "We would not normally give a planning
384
application approval for building a small estate of 20 or 30 town houses there because of access to the builder's yard and the hauliers' operating sector". But perhaps that could upset other longer-term aspects of the whole planning for the region. What the planning authority could say is, "We will give the planning authority now", and then in two or three years the environmentalists will get hold of it and the licensing authority will have that kind of pressure brought upon them, to impose such conditions that the whole operation falls by the wayside.
About the only comfort I can take from my noble friend the Minister are the words "the best practicable means". I have to tell him that certainly the Freight Transport Association and Road Haulage Association have not gone away from the current series of discussions with assurances which satisfy them. In begging leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, I must say that it is up to those organisations to fight this battle further when it comes to the matter of the regulations. I believe that the Government have stepped a little too heavily in this direction.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 81, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of an application for an operator's licence concerning the use of any place as an operating centre already in use as an operating centre under an existing licence or an application for variation of a licence in accordance with section 69D of this Act any conditions attached to the licence shall be such as not to materially affect the continuation of the applicant's business.").
The noble Lord said: We follow the same argument. This amendment is set down as an additional clause, to protect the legitimate interests of those people engaged in the haulage industry who have operating sectors upon which a licence application, renewal or variation might have attached to it a number of special conditions. Some of those special conditions are set down and were among those we discussed on the previous amendment. Surely it cannot be right that special conditions should be and can be imposed on the operation of a commercial undertaking whereby that undertaking's very existence is threatened, unless there are compensatory factors? In this Bill there are no compensatory factors for the imposition of special conditions.
I have a shrewd feeling that I understand exactly how this Committee feels towards me at this moment. I think I do, because lorries and Lucas always seem to go together. Lorries seem to evoke the most emotive arguments—they are horrid, they are beastly, they are obtrusive, they should go anywhere, but near where I live, in my street or in my village. It is not just this aspect of it. Your Lordships will see that Lord Stanley's name is on this amendment. I am joined, therefore, by the views of the National Farmer's Union. So it is not just the hauliers, the road transport people, but the farmers as well who are particularly concerned that conditions might be imposed, and particularly one for hours, highly desirable for the neighbourhood, totally detrimental to the existence or continuance of the business. I have spoken about the pea harvest; that is one of them. If you happen to be in the road construction business and concrete or tarmac or whatever the substance it is being laid tomorrow, the

385
gang starts at 7 o'clock in the morning; you have to get to the plant and you may have to leave at 5 o'clock in order to be on site, or the whole thing falls down and costs an enormous amount of money. Those are just two aspects. I think these are really quite important.
If one then sets, as another condition, "Right, you have approval here for the parking of 20 lorries, five rigids, ten articulated and another 10 trailers, and you have your own bunkering facility. You can go on doing that, but you must take your fuel bunker away because we do not like the smell. Somebody's back garden has now arrived up against your back fence. So take that away; that is the special condition we are imposing on renewal". A man might be penalised as much as 3p or 4p per gallon of derv, and derv is a considerable factor in the costing of road transport.
What I am suggesting in this amendment is to secure some fairness, some understanding as between the licensing authority and the operator of what the ground rules are in this new game. It is a new game to them; they have been aware of it for some time but it is going to come right hard into their operating centres quite shortly. So what are the rules. One of the rules should be, I am suggesting, quite simply that the licensing authority shall take into account all these factors and bear in mind that these conditions should not be imposed if they would materially affect the continuation of the applicant's business.
I do not think it is right—grandfather's rights or not—that a man should be run out of business because of a particular condition, hours, bunkering and so on. Some deal might be arrived at. I think this is only fair and only reasonable in the light of all that the Committee have said with regard to my earlier amendment. I do ask the Committee to think of this in terms of fair deals for all, a balance as between the rights of the man in an operating centre to continue in business without heavy penalty, and the rights of those who live near and around to enjoy the benefits of an environment not totally despoiled by a commercial operation. That is all I am asking for in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My noble friend's second amendment in this little group reflects, as he has said, the concern expressed by the road haulage industry that the conditions which a licensing authority could attach to a licence might prejudice established businesses and circumvent the protection otherwise afforded by our proposals to existing operators. Let me say straightaway that I am not in the slightest unsympathetic to the use of lorries, quite the contrary. I think anyone who does not today recognise that they have an absolutely essential part to play in so many aspects of our everyday life, commercial, even private, really is living in another world entirely. I do not think as far as I am concerned that is so, and I gladly assure my noble friend as to that. I suspect that Members of the Committee would go along with me on that. I think what is of concern here is the question of balance, trying to ensure that while one does cover the points of concern of my noble friend we also look at certain other aspects at this time of change, the new situation, that we take them all into account. That is all we are trying to do.
386
This amendment would introduce into draft Clause 69C, which deals with the attachment of conditions, a provision parallel to that in Clause 69B which deals with refusal of the licence. But the two situations are not the same. Where an operator's business has remained unchanged, it would be wrong to refuse him a new licence, even though developments have taken place around him. As I have indicated on the previous amendment, it may not be unreasonable to attach conditions to a new licence in order to ameliorate the effects of his operation on the surrounding environment, provided that those conditions are not so onerous as seriously to prejudice the running of the business.
We do not believe that the provision in Clause 69C could be used in the way that my noble friend fears. Let me try to explain why. In striking what I referred to as the balance between the legitimate interests of road hauliers and the need for improvements to the environment, the licensing authority will have to form a balanced and lawful judgment in each case when attaching any conditions to a licence. We shall be prescribing the considerations to which the licensing authorities shall have regard when attaching any conditions to a licence. We shall make it clear that the licensing authority shall have regard to the nature of the operator's business and his past record. I believe that our approach is sounder than that suggested by my noble friend. I submit that it would be mistaken to include in the Bill a provision to the effect that conditions attached to a licence shall not materially affect the continuation of the applicant's business.
Apart from the difficulty of defining the phrase, "materially affect", it is well established that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers but must act in good faith and must act reasonably. There are legal limits to every power, and statutory power conferred for public purposes can only be used in the right and proper way. In the planning field, for example, planning conditions have been held invalid unless they fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development and if they attempt to restrict the owner's existing rights in his land. Similarly, conditions attached to an operator's licence would be held to be invalid if they were such as to prevent the operator from using his operating centre as such. These analogies could not be ignored.
My noble friend's proposal would also, if I may use the term, be rather dangerous, because it might suggest a change in the law which, though he surely does not intend it, could possibly be a change detrimental to the operators and which could be resolved only by the courts. It might cast an unintended shadow. The House did not think it appropriate to include such a provision in other comparable legislation, notably Sections 16 and 32 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, which relates to licences for the operation of public service vehicles.
We recognise the concern that has been expressed about the attachment of conditions; I tried to emphasise it when speaking to the last amendment and I meant it very seriously. But I hope that, in view of my explanation, my noble friend will agree that perhaps his concern need not be as great as he had feared. I point out that the bunkering condition which he mentioned would be ultra vires and maybe that will

387
also make him feel a little better about what we are proposing.
We have given firm assurances and I gladly repeat them again today for the record. It is no part of our intention that responsible road haulage operators should—to use the phrase of my noble friend—have their very existence threatened. That is the very last thing that we want to see happen as a result of these new measures. Nor, frankly, do we think that our proposals will have that effect. Without any doubt, if we did think that they might have that effect, then frankly we would not be putting them forward. It is as simple as that. I hope that with those comments my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am still slightly concerned about this point, and I rise to support my noble friend Lord Lucas. Recently one has encountered a number of occasions when the local planning authority has imposed working hour restrictions on industrial sites. That is a growing trend that is causing concern to industrialists. Therefore, one can only expect local authorities—without perhaps meaning to do so—to abuse the law and the good intentions of my noble friend the Minister by putting working hour restrictions on licences. That could be very detrimental, particularly in agricultural cases, where working hours are crucial in order to get fresh produce to markets on time. If one finds oneself in a situation where one's licence has not been renewed or is renewed subject to working hours conditions, it will be an expensive and lengthy process to combat the local authority to prove them wrong. What remedy does the individual have in those circumstances?
Lord Mottistone: I, too, am concerned about this matter, because one has met it in many other areas. I do not question the sincerity of my noble friend Lord Bellwin in saying what the Government mean and do not intend to happen in the sense that they have no intention of upsetting the situation, and that the industrialist, of whatever type he might be, is not a target for anything. The difficulty is that the licensing authority in this case, and other local authority bodies, like planning authorities, do not seem to me to be shackled in the way in which one would like. If there were something written into the statute which put some type of restraint upon them, or if my noble friend could quote another statute which puts restraint upon them, other than the "good intention" remarks, then it would help tremendously to set our minds at rest. If my noble friend cannot do that because it does not exist or because it will take time to find it, then perhaps he could undertake to look at this again before turning down the basic theme of what my noble friend Lord Lucas is putting across in his amendment. However, one wants to have something rather more underpinning than just good intentions.
Lord Underhill: It was not my intention to speak on this amendment, because I thought that I had said what I had to say on the other amendment. I thought
388
that they were both being taken together. While appreciating the argument put forward, it will be fatal to underpin to such an extent that the desire of everyone to deal with the environmental issue plainly falls to the ground. One can picture circumstances where a company may have set up an operating centre and then, with the passage of years, what may have been three vehicles becomes 15 vehicles which are parked all over the place—parked outside the centre; parked in residential areas and a danger to traffic. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, shakes his head. We do not want to mention specific places here, but I could mention places that I pass almost every day. Therefore, one cannot possibly leave it so safeguarded that one does nothing. That is the point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. That is the kind of emotive talk which appalls me. The noble Lord said that he knew of an operating centre which started with three vehicles and which now has 15. It could not have increased by 12 without the licensing authority granting the appropriate licences. You cannot just buy them and stuff them into a park and operate them: you have to have a licence on them. Therefore, there is a failure further down the line—my split cardboard box argument. I do not see how he can apply that kind of argument to the point which my noble friend Lord Mottistone makes.
Lord Underhill: I think the answer is that the Bill is now giving the licensing authorities power to deal with licensing on environmental grounds, which they have not had up to now. That is the point. I do not think that there is a great deal of argument between us. The difference is that if we try to write in all the safeguards that are wanted then, frankly, the aims of the Foster Committee, the aims of the Armitage Committee, the aims of the Government and, I believe the aims of many noble Lords in this Committee, will be completely and utterly frustrated.
In my remarks on the previous amendment I referred to the right of appeal. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister could emphasise this point because I understand that it is now quite clear that there is the right of appeal by licence holders to the transport tribunal. I believe that that is something that they do not have at the moment, but it is an important factor where the very points which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others are, making surely could be covered.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps I may comment on one or two of the observations that have been made. Let me deal first with the right of appeal point. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is absolutely right: there is the right of appeal to the transport tribunal. I think I should say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that in fact the local authorities have nothing to do with this at all beyond the fact that they can make objections, if they wish, to the licensing authority. However, they are not the arbiters; they are not the ones who are making the decisions—it is the licensing authority who will do that. Licensing is a quasi-judicial appointment rather like that of a magistrate. That is really

389
what the traffic commissioners are about. I do not think that my noble friend need be too concerned about that.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone acknowledged my good intentions—and they certainly are that—but I would say that we are going beyond that here. The best of intentions must be restricted by the general rules of ultra vires. If my noble friend, in the assiduous way in which he always tackles everything with which he deals, would like to talk to me about that separately or to correspond with me, I should be very happy to do so.
I can only say, as I said before on the previous amendment, that we are trying here to strike a balance; we are trying to get it better than it is at the moment, recognising absolutely the validity of what my noble friend Lord Lucas says about his concern for the industry. He is absolutely right. I think he knows that we would have equal concern for the prosperity of that industry. I think that we have the balance right. I hope that, as a result of what has now been said, my noble friend will feel somewhat assuaged in his concern and perhaps able not to press his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am not assuaged one little bit. My noble friend talks about a balance. Here we are asking quite simply for a balance to be stntck—a balance between the licensing authority being able to impose any conditions upon a new applicant, a renewal of a licence or a variation.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to 15 lorries, saying that it was high time the licensing authority was able to regularise this position. Is he therefore now suggesting retrospective legislation? Because in the past licensing authorities have granted licences which are in what are now termed undesirable operating centres, is he suggesting that they can now say "All right, you can have a renewal of your licence, but from 15 vehicles down to seven"? That is exactly what could happen.
I am no lawyer and I would hesitate to trespass on the law, but I am advised that all those precedents with regard to what is unfair have never applied in this area. I understand that there are many precedents in the planning area, but not in road transportation. Therefore, I do not think that those who speak with me will rest very happy on this.
I do not have the direct quotation, but in looking at my notes I see that during the Report stage in the other place on 24th May the Minister, Mrs. Chalker, said that the Government wanted to enable licensing authorities to impose conditions when there had been no material change. What is the material change? Is it a material change from a Ford lorry to a Scania lorry of perhaps a different horsepower, with perhaps some other differences—three axles instead of two for the tractor unit?
I think that my noble friend the Minister is being harsh and unreasonable in not allowing the operator to have some comfort, if nothing else, but at least the right that the licensing authority must take into account the business. There is nowhere that he need do that. It is no good this operator going off to the courts to sue for what is fair or not fair. The Bill should set down clearly what is fair and what is not fair.
390
Although I still do not detract one bit from what we said earlier, that there is a need for environmental control, I am sufficiently unhappy about this matter to accept the invitation of my noble friend the Minister to talk to him, perhaps to find some form of words in an amendment which would give me the protection I want for a very significant industry, without detracting at all from those who want to pursue a purely environmental benefit argument. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 83, line 7, after ("effects") insert ("on environmental conditions").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment to subsection (6) of new Section 79D of the Transport Act 1968. Persons will be able to make representations under subsection (5) of Section 69D, against the grant of an application for variation of an operator's licence, if there would be adverse effects from the use of the operating centre. This amendment makes clear that these adverse effects shall be those "on environmental conditions", consistent with subsection (4) and with Section 69B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 83, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 11 and insert ("Where any objection or representations are duly made under this section in respect of any application for a variation of an operator's licence").
The noble Lord said: This, too, is a minor drafting amendment to subsection (7) of new Section 69D of the 1968 Act. The licensing authority's power to refuse an application for variation of an operator's licence, on environmental grounds, is to be exercised only if objections or representations have been duly made to him. The amendment makes subsection (7) consistent with Section 69B in this respect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 86 and 87:
Page 84, line 40, leave out ("69D") and insert ("68(4) or 69D(3)").
Page 85, line 18, after ("section") insert ("68,").
The noble Lord said: While moving this amendment, I should also like to move Amendment No. 87, and speak to Amendment No. 90. The first two of these minor drafting amendments are to subsections (2) and (4) of new Section 69G of the 1968 Act, extending these subsections to cover applications made under existing Section 68, consistent with new Section 69D.
The third, and related minor amendment is to paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 4. It amends existing Section 68 of the 1968 Act to refer to new Section 69E, which requires publication of applications in newspapers before the licensing authority considers them I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 85, leave out lines 22 to 33.
The noble Lord said: This minor amendment deletes subsection (5) of new Section 69G, which relates to the

391
contents of notices of applications for variation of operators' licences published under Section 69D. Arrangements will be adequate for ensuring that potential objectors know about applications, since applications will have to be published in a local newspaper under Section 69E. The detailed content of notices of applications is a matter best left to the licensing authorities to decide. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 86, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 15.
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 130 and 133. The main purpose of these amendments is to leave intact the requirements concerning suitability of operating centres, inserted in the 1968 Act by the Road Traffic Act 1974. They are not entirely superseded by the new provisions of Clause 50 and Schedule 4. We see merit in retaining these requirements since licensing authorities have found them to be useful in some circumstances. There is also a repeal of Section 64(2)(b), consequential to the repeal of Section 65 of the 1968 Act, concerning transport managers' licences, which is explained by Amendment No. 126. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 86, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 22 and insert ("In section 68 of that Act (variation of operators' licences)—

(a) at the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 69E of this Act"; and

(b) in subsection (4), paragraph (a) shall be omitted, and").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 86, line 26, at end insert—
(". In section 87(3) of that Act (inquiries by licensing authorities as to proposed exercise of powers under section 69), after "69" there shall be inserted the words" or 69F".
. In section 91 of that Act (regulations and orders for purposes of Part V)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "section 69" there shall be substituted the words "sections 69 and 69F"; and

(b) in paragraph (d), after "69" there shall be inserted the words "or 69F".").

The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 134. These are technical amendments to Sections 87 and 91 of the 1968 Act, and to Section 66 of the Transport Act 1980, consequential to the new powers of revocation under Section 69F. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 86, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("(construction") and insert ("In section 92 of that Act—
(a) in subsection (1) (interpretation of particular expressions used in Part V), the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate point in alphabetical order—
"owner", in relation to any land in England and Wales, means a person, other than a mortgagee not in possession, who, whether in his own right or as trustee for any other person, is entitled to receive the rack rent,
392
of the land or, where the land is not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if it were so let; and
(b) at the end of subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor technical amendment designed to clarify the definition of "owner", which is used in Schedule 4 in relation to those persons entitled to make representations about operator's licences. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 86, line 31, at end insert—
("6. In section 63 of that Act (objections to grant of operators' licences)—
(a) in subsection (3) (persons entitled to object) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (c)—
"(d) a planning authority"; and
(b) in subsection (6) the following definitions shall be inserted after the definition of "local authority"—
""planning authority" means any body other than a local authority which by virtue of any statutory provision for the time being in force is—

(a) in England and Wales, the local planning authority for any area for the purpose of determining applications for planning permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (general planning control); and

(b) in Scotland, the planning authority for any area for the purpose of determining applications for planning permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (general planning control);

"statutory provision" means a provision contained in an Act or in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978; and".").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked, etc.]:
6.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 58, line 8, leave out from ("it") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: We now come to a series of amendments all concerned with the immobilisation of vehicles. Let me repeat at the outset my profound disgust that the Department of Transport find themselves so bereft of any ideas with regard to motor vehicles parked in such cities as London—or indeed any other idea—that they have to impose upon the motoring public a clamp. I shall have more to say about that later. This amendment—and I think it would be more sensible if we went through the amendments rather than speaking to the whole clause at the outset—
Lord Underhill: I wonder whether we can have guidance on this? The department has given me a form in which the amendments should be grouped, and it seems sensible. To take them all together would seem to me to be an unwise procedure, and I would much prefer, if the noble Lord agrees, to take them in the form that the department has agreed on.
Lord Bellwin: So far as we are concerned, Yes. If we had agreed the groupings, I thought that would be the way to do it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I do not know about there being an agreement to group. Certainly no proposal has come before the Committee. A suggestion came from the department of which I had a copy, and that was that. I am not prepared for a debate—
Lord Bellwin: Would my noble friend give way? Do I understand from my noble friend that he, having seen this suggested list of groupings, did not agree with it? If so, did he say so?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I saw the suggested grouping. I was neither asked nor did I say whether I agreed or disagreed. If it is the wish of the Committee to deal with Clause 51 and a number of amendments that are down, then let us do that. In which case I do not know what time we are going to go to dinner before we finish this first amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Could we be told what the grouping is, then we would know what is puzzling us?
The Earl of Avon: I think we are getting unduly complicated in this. My understanding of the grouping is that it was suggested by the Department with a telephone number to ring if anybody wanted anything. It is a simple one. I do not think the Committee will be worried. It is not a large one. It is purely that with 94 we thought 98 was appropriate. With 95 I was going to move 99. When we get to the 100s, with 100 we were thinking that 101 would go together, and then 105 with 106, 107, and 121, which fit together very well, I think the Committee will agree when they look at them.
Lord Airedale: Would the Minister say that again?
The Earl of Avon: Indeed. 94 with 98; 95 with 99; 100 with 101; 105 with 106, 107, and 121.
Lord Underhill: Was not 103 going to be the main group? It is a Government amendment, 103, plus 105, 106, 107 and 121.
The Earl of Avon: I will be perfectly happy when I speak to 103 to speak to the others.
Lord Mottistone: Surely my noble friend must now tell us whether he likes this. I do not see why we should be dragooned just because from the Opposition Front Bench they tell us that this is the way we have got to do it.
The Earl of Avon: We were not dragooned at all. We entirely accepted this point. The person I am slightly worried about is whether my noble friend Lord Lucas is happy with that set-up.
Lord Underhill: I am sorry that the reference to dragooning came in. I could go through the list here and tell you what each amendment is going to do and the reasons why they should be as they are.
394
For instance, we do not want disabled badges linked up with other factors. It seems to me logical and sensible, and I am certain noble Lords will agree that if you took the subject matters the grouping is sensible and would make for better debates in the Committee.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I agree, but it was a pity that the department did not let anybody, except perhaps the Opposition Front Bench, have the list.
Lord Mischon: In fairness, because the noble Baroness always wants to be fair, the people responsible for the amendments, as I understand it, were informed of the groupings. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has down a number of amendments. He was informed. The Opposition Front Bench were informed. We were treated with the courtesy of a telephone number if we had any views on it. This is the usual procedure, as I understand it, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who occasionally uses language that he sometimes regrets and apologises for, would wish not to continue using words like "dragooned" when they are quite unnecessary and completely inappropriate.
Lord Mottistone: I have no wish whatsoever to withdraw my remarks on this particular occasion.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I would not wish to prolong this discussion but I wonder whether in terms of the future there can be some arrangement whereby these matters can be posted publicly in some way in the House so that we can all see this. I do not share Lord Mottistone's views on the matter, and I think the use of the term "dragooned" is a rather extreme form of language, to be blunt. There must be a simple way to avoid arguments of this kind in the future, and I hope we can do something along these lines to avoid this difficulty again.
Lord Bellwin: I would just want to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so properly put it, there are procedures that one follows in this. Having gone through myself I think some 3,000 amendments in the last three years I am not entirely unfamiliar with what has to be done. We always try hard to observe the courtesies, and I challenge my noble friend Lord Mottistone, or anyone else, to say otherwise. Occasionally one can make a mistake. I frankly do not think a mistake was made on this occasion.
The procedure is known. Of course, we discuss with those who put down an amendment what might be the sensible grouping. If they think not, then that is their prerogative; that is their privilege. We would not dream of trying to dragoon or suggest that it be taken in any way other than the way the proposer of the amendments wishes. Nonetheless, it is often sensible to put them together for obvious reasons. If we can do it it helps the business of the House. It makes for more meaningul debate, and it is helpful. If not, my noble friend Lord Lucas is absolutely within his rights to say, "No, I do not want it this way", and I would want to take it the way he wants. That is up to him. But so far as courtesy and the procedures are concerned, I think we have not stepped one bit any more out of the way with this than we have tried to do in the past.
Lord Tanlaw: May I point out to the Minister that we have had no knowledge of these groupings, and hence our bewilderment on these Benches. This has possibly been overlooked.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: But you have not tabled any amendments.
Lord Tanlaw: I have an amendment to leave out Clause 51.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I believe that all Members of the Committee have rights in this matter whether they have put amendments down or not. I am sure the Minister would agree with that. The question is how we can improve our internal processes of communication. I hope that this can be looked at in future. I do not want to prolong the matter but I think there is general agreement that we should try to avoid this sort of problem in the future if we can.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Perhaps I might remind the Committee that Amendment No. 94 has been called. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, whether he wishes to move the amendment?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: With Amendment No. 94, I would obviously like to deal with Amendment No. 98, to which it is related. If one accepts the power being given to constables—which I do not, but we shall come to that later—by subsection (1)(b), I should like to know precisely what is meant by the wording of the provision, when it says that he may,
"move it from that place to another place on the same or another road and fix an immobilisation device to it in that other place".
I should like to know how far from the original place to another place or another road he can move it. How will the driver know where his vehicle is when he returns to it? And will there be any safeguard that the power to move the vehicle to some other place will be used properly; for example, will it apply to cars on meter bays? The idea apparently is to fix a device—again, we shall come to that later—so that the motorist is suitably embarrassed in that he must find somebody to unlock the device so that he can drive away, having first parted with some money. How is the motorist to know where the vehicle is, if it has been removed and locked up? Will there be proper safeguards so that the unlocking process will be easy, and will the vehicle be moved only a reasonable distance? Later we shall debate a number of amendments—we can discuss them collectively in groups—dealing with the various issues, but meanwhile I suggest that this provision means that a constable will be able to move a vehicle from one place to another simply to enable him to fix an immobilising device. That seems to be a contradiction in terms, and perhaps the Minister can enlighten me.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is important that we retain the essence of being able to remove the vehicle. I have spoken on this issue in detail before, and I do not propose to delay the Committee on it now. I oppose Amendment No. 94, and therefore No. 98
396
also, because unless there is a right to move the vehicle, the obstruction or danger being caused by the vehicle being in a certain position will remain. I do not accept my noble friend's argument about people not knowing where their vehicles have been moved to. If at present one's car is towed to the car pound—which is a much further distance than is envisaged under the new system of immobilisation—one usually has to go a great distance and one is caused much greater inconvenience. Drivers usually discover that their vehicles have been taken to the pound by telephoning the police to report their cars stolen. It is then they are informed that they are at the pound. The right to remove the vehicle is a most important part of the immobilisation process.
Lord Underhill: On Second Reading I too voiced criticism of this provision, but the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, converted me with the view she has repeated tonight, and I accept her argument immediately.
The Earl of Avon: It may help if I were to clarify some of our thinking on this matter, particularly as my noble friend Lord Lucas asked a number of questions. The idea as that the police areempowered to remove a vehicle before immobilising it. This brings the more serious and anti-social parking offence within the scope of the clause, and I note in particular that the Metropolitan Police attached great importance to this subsection. They will find it particularly helpful at the times when the means for removing an obstructing or dangerously parked vehicle to the pound are not immediately available. I should perhaps mention that we have power at the moment to move vehicles to the pound, and therefore we can move vehicles.
Anybody parking in a dangerous place will be used to returning to his vehicle and finding it gone; it has been moved to the pound and he must go to the police to find out where it is. If the power to move and then immobilise were deleted, the police would in those cases be unable to deal effectively with the offence. This will allow them to shift the vehicle to a safer or less obstructive position and then apply a sanction by immobilising it. They will be able to do this in a fraction of the time it might take to remove the vehicle to the pound, and to that degree the motorist, if he does not like going to the pound, will be better off because he can look a few yards down the road for his car.
Fears have been expressed that the vehicle will be moved an excessive distance or that the driver will be unable to find it. We do not think that will be the case. If the police have the means and the time to move a vehicle a substantial distance, they are likely to put it in the pound. The driver's position will be no different from that of 80,000 drivers a year who now find that their vehicles have been towed away. Indeed, in many cases the vehicle will have been repositioned only a few yards so that it is in sight of the place where it was left.
An example of the kind of thing we have in mind is that of a car left outside the entrance to a hospital. Obviously, one would not want to clamp it there, but it might be possible to move it five or 10 yards away from the hospital entrance, where a clamp could then be applied. That would save the necessity of taking

397
it to the pound and enable the hospital to have its facility. I hope I have answered at least some of the points my noble friend raised, though others will no doubt arise on later amendments in his name.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to my noble friend for that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 58, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any vehicle on which there is displayed a current disabled person's badge.").
The noble Earl said: This gives effect to an undertaking which my noble friend gave your Lordships on Second Reading to exempt orange badge holders from the immobilisation powers. We are grateful for the representations of the Joint Committee on the Mobility of the Disabled on this point, and I am glad that we have been able to respond positively. The exemption will extend to any vehicle displaying a current badge which is issued, or has effect as if issued, under regulations if force under Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
On Second Reading several noble Lords pointed out that the creation of this exemption will make it all the more urgent that the proposed changes to the orange badge scheme should be implemented without delay. Interested bodies have recently been consulted on a draft circular to accompay the regulations, and their comments are now being considered. We hope that the regulations will be laid before Parliament before the Recess. Changes would not however come into force for a few months after the regulations are made, so that local authorities will have time to acquire stocks of the new badges envisaged in the regulations, and to acquaint themselves with the other measures being introduced. Nevertheless, we expect the changes to come into operation by the end of the year, and this should reduce the risk of abuse of badges in order to avoid immobilisation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: As the Minister mentioned the orange badge, may I ask whether the other badges he mentioned include the special ones to London, because parts of London do not recognise the orange badge. I am thinking for example, of Camden, Kensington and Westminster; Westminster have a special white badge. While the Minister is obtaining that information, I should like to thank the Government and the Department of Transport for their helpfulness towards disabled people in the matter.
The Earl of Avon: I am advised that if applies only to the national schemes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 58, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) An immobilisation device may not be applied to a vehicle parked in an authorised parking meter bay unless that
398
vehicle has remained there in contravention of any prohibition or restriction for longer than 2 hours more than the parking time for which payment has been made.").
The noble Lord said: This is more important than my previous amendment, in that I have been worried throughout our debates on this clause, which deals with the immobilisation of vehicles, because we have been talking all the time about reinforcing the law particularly in regard to the persistent offender. I believe that attention has moved away from the persistent offender, because nobody has been able to identify him. We are now left with dealing with non-compliance of the law dealing with the total failure in the past few years of enforcement authorities to enforce parking regulations, in particular in Central London.
In proposing the amendment my worry is that willy-nilly an authority will decide that x area will be policed—and I use the word with a small "p"—in regard to wheel clamps on a particular day or days. I imagine, since no one has told me anything to the contrary, that wheel clamps will be fixed not only where vehicles are parked in dangerous or unauthorised positions, but in any circumstances where the parking laws are being flouted. Presumably that will include an authorised roadway parking bay, with a green or grey meter. If that is so, I feel that it means that we have failed to deal with the real problem. When using a bay with a grey meter an offender might well have intended to park there for only two hours, having paid £1·20, if it is in Central London (60p an hour) but could be delayed. So the amendment suggests that an immobilisation device may not be applied to a vehicle in the type of parking bay that I have described unless it has remained there for longer than two hours beyond the parking time.
I know full well that on a grey meter there is a two-hours paid period, followed by another period of two hours in which the excess charge of £4 arises. After a further hour a penalty fee is applied. In regard to the example that I have given, am I to understand that the immobilisation device could be applied after only five hours?—in which case it would be rather a nonsense; or perhaps the Government accept my view that a motorist might make a mistake, thinking that he has parked at a green meter, which would give him a few more hours. I have suggested a further period of more than two hours before the immobilisation device is affixed. In any event, it seems to me that with a period of five hours the penalty is quite sufficient, bearing in mind that penalties have now been increased. We must also bear in mind the question of parking illegally where there is no parking space, or where there is a danger. Perhaps my noble friend can help me on those points. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: This is one of the occasions when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I come together again, and I think that the principle that he is advancing is the right one. I shall support Clause 51 when we come to the question of whether the clause shall stand part, though of course there might be differences among us on how certain decisions should be taken. One of the arguments for the scheme is based on the element of persistence. The constable will have authority to decide, and I believe that a

399
period of more than two hours after the normal parking time is reasonable. We do not want wheel clamps fitted to vehicles that have over-stayed for, say, only half an hour. We are talking about parking meter bays, not illegal parking on yellow lines or such, which will be considered in relation to the clause as a whole.
I believe that if the Government accept the general principle, the words
"more than the parking time"
in the penultimate line of the amendment should perhaps be altered, so that that part of the amendment would read,
"more than the initial parking period".
That is the important point which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is pursuing, and I believe that the principle here is right.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I, too, should like to comment on the amendment, and like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I tend to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on it. There are a couple of points that should be raised so that they can be considered by the Government. If the wording,
"an authorised parking meter bay",
is used, I think that it would be important to emphasise that it should be an authorised operational parking meter bay, since sometimes parking meter bays are cordoned off and must not be used, perhaps because of possible danger or obstruction. If the proposed amendment were adopted without covering the point that I have mentioned, it might not be possible to deal with vehicles that are parked in the circumstances that I have described.
The other matter that I want to raise relates to the period of time. Some tidying-up is needed here, since it is quite legal to have an initial period of two hours, or four hours, according to the type of meter, plus another two hours on an excess charge, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned. I think that even after the excess charge period there should be some leeway—possibly another hour. After all, the motorist would be paying a £l0 penalty on top of his earlier expense of buying time on the meter. We must bear in mind that the meters are positioned so as not to cause danger to any person, nor obstruction to traffic, except of course on the rare occasions when their use is banned for a particular period. So I would support the principle of the amendment, though I feel that some adjustment is needed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The noble Earl the Minister stated that vehicles driven by disabled people are not exempt from wheel clamps when in Central London, because the special London badges are not recognised. Does that mean that the wheels of such vehicles will be clamped? That would be a great worry to disabled people, especially if they were in a building that they were unable to get out of.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to intervene at this point, since I, too, welcome what was said about the disabled badge, though I did not speak on it, so as to save time. I think that some confusion is arising
400
here. Although areas of central London have their own white badges or other types of badges, there is nothing to stop disabled people using in those areas the normal national orange badge as well. They would then be properly covered. They could have both types of badge, surely.
Baroness Denington: I am not unsympathetic to what is being proposed, but it rather worries me, because surely it goes against the whole principle of parking meters. An authorised parking place, which is not obstructive, is intended to be used for only a limited period, so that a number of people can park during the day, and then business can be carried on, and so forth. If we are not very careful, we might be so generous as to destroy the proper principle behind the use of parking meters.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: At the moment it is possible to leave a car on a parking meter for the whole day for £10.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Any noble Lord who believes that Greater London is in any way helpful towards disabled people really needs himself to be disabled to find out that that is not so. The situation is absolutely impossible for disabled people. The orange badge is never recognised, and now the Minister has told us that the other badges for Westminster, Camden, Fulham, and Chelsea will not be recognised, either. So for disabled people life will be even more difficult than it has been in the past—and it has been bad enough.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage and say that no motorist displaying an orange badge issued under the national scheme would have his car immobilised, whether or not it was parked in a position covered by the exemptions in the national scheme. The national badge is available to eligible disabled people living in London. As the noble Baroness probably realises, she somewhat took me by surprise on the issue that she raised, and so I should like to look into it.
We, too, accept the general principle as to the use of parking meters, but I should like to put before the Committee some of the reasons why we are reluctant to write it into the legislation. I understand that there are some 15,000 parking meters in central London. They are intended to provide a turnover of short-term parking spaces throughout the day, and have the additional function of raising revenue, which is primarily applied to the provision of off-street parking. The GLC's assessment is that the turnover at meters, and hence the vacancy rate and the availability of short-term parking space, is extensively undermined by misuse; and they calculate that 40 per cent. of time used at meters is used illegally.
There are, therefore, substantial potential gains in parking supply if meters are used as intended rather than for longer-term parking. In fact, few things would do more to improve the motorists' lot than a higher vacancy rate at meters, and this will not occur unless the present level of enforcement can be improved. The Government are therefore reluctant to see the effectiveness of wheel clamps as a means of enforcement at meters prejudiced. Having said that, the police do

401
not intend to use wheel clamps to penalise short overstays, any more than they tow away from meter bays except in the rarest circumstances. A vehicle is not parked illegally—this is one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made—during the excess period, and wheel clamps therefore could not be used during the excess period.
The amendment would create considerable difficulties for the police. The type of parking meter most widely used in London has a display which indicates the passage of time for more than an hour after the penalty period has begun, but it is impossible to tell by looking at the meter whether the penalty flag is displayed because the driver has failed to pay the initial charge or because he has paid the charge and overstayed the time. We believe that, here, the amendment would need some changing, as it would allow immobilisation at meter bays only where a charge has been paid and the parking period has expired by two hours. It would rule out immobilisation for such offences as meter feeding and, of course, failure to pay the initial charge.
I know it is too easy to give examples, but I have around the corner from where I live some meters, and there is a car which persistently parks there throughout the day. I am longing to give the number of that car to someone to deal with, because this is the sort of thing which will be effective. I will bring in the registration number if nobody believes me. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, also produced something we shall obviously have to look into, which is a covering over the meter.
I think that the Committe would agree that the amendment appears to protect meter feeders, and meter feeding is at the heart of the extensive use of meters for long-term parking which should be accommodated off-street. For these reasons I suggest that the amendment would render the wheel clamp less potent as a means of enforcement, and I think would greatly restrict the scope of the proposed experiment. I hope the Committee will agree with me. As they can see, I do not feel particularly strongly but I do feel that we should leave this option open and not close it.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I may introduce, very shortly, one slightly differing thought on a matter which I know concerns not only the Members of the Committee but all citizens in the metropolis. I introduce the point that I want to make with the feeling that the Committee would always want the utmost consideration to be paid to anybody who is disabled; and the idea of anyone who is disabled having the vehicle upon which they depend immobilised (whether they have a white badge, a red badge or any other badge) I think fills all the Members of the Committee with a sense of abhorrence. I am sure the Minister feels exactly the same way as we all do, when he is looking at it.
What I feel is so unjust is this. The motorist is being very severely criticised for the fact that he has even had the courtesy, which most motorists have not got, to put his car in a parking meter space—he has had that amount of consideration—and he has stayed there (like a villain, it is almost suggested) for something like four or five hours. I put this point very shortly and very simply, so that it is in the correct context,
402
certainly so far as London is concerned. If half the time and half the money that is going to be spent on administering this sort of service of clamping cars that are in fact on parking meters could be put into London Transport itself, so that London Transport was a little more efficient and a little cheaper, it might be a different matter. There are many decent citizens who feel they have to use private cars because of the difficulties in regard to transport that we are at the present moment belabouring.
I think we must have this in context. The citizen is not quite the criminal that we are making him out to be when he parks his car on a parking meter. He is usually a person who is now finding it too expensive to travel on public transport in London, or who finds that transport, unfortunately, not as efficient as it ought to be.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I rather agreed with the general approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, though I accept the force of some of the arguments deployed by the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I think there is a real problem here, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Of course we have to encourage responsible use of parking meter bays. Of course that is fight. But I do not think that the department responsible for the implementation of this legislation should have any doubt about the degree of anger that there will be among many law-abiding motorists when they find these immobilisation devices on their cars when they have at least put their car on a parking meter, when there are many other people in the same area who have not troubled to put their cars on parking meters and when the only reason why they find themselves in that position is not for any deliberate desire on their part to ignore the regulations but because (and this is obviously a feature of many people's lives) they have been inadvertently delayed. I believe that there is likely to be a great deal of public indignation about this, and I hope we are not going to be told that it is quite impossible to refine this process.
Quite bluntly, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is extremely tiresome so far as this particular issue is concerned because I believe (if I may repeat the point) that there is a real risk of some deterioration in the relations between the public and the police so far as this matter is concerned when this whole process has begun. I hope very much that the noble Earl will take account of what has been said and will give us some indication that he is prepared to look at this matter again, and will come back at Report stage with some rather more sensible arrangements than, frankly, are in this Bill at the moment.
Lord Feversham: It seems to me, as the noble Earl has himself said, that what we want to try to do is to get motorists, even though they have been parked on a meter for a certain length of time, off that meter once they have overstayed their time, so that somebody else can use it. I would not have thought that putting a wheel clamp on his wheel was a way of speeding up that process.
The Earl of Avon: There is only one point about which I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Of course, the tow-away

403
enforcement laws at the moment can do just that, so your vehicle might have gone if it had been there too long.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Yes, but I hope the noble Earl is going to respond to the general feeling expressed in the Committee on this particular amendment. I hope he is going to give some clear indication that he is prepared to look at this matter again. Having simply listened to this debate, as he of course has, it appears that a very significant number of Members of this Committee are concerned about the provisions of the Bill as they appear on the face of it. I therefore hope very much that he will give some indication that he is prepared to look at this matter extremely seriously with a view to moving in the general direction set out in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The Earl of Avon: Indeed (I probably sat down rather too quickly) I was going to say that I would take it back and have a look at it. Perhaps I could discuss it with my noble friend Lord Lucas and see whether we can meet somewhere along the line on it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am very much obliged to noble Lords for taking part in this debate. It comes as no surprise that such an innovation as this strikes a little deeply into everybody's motoring bosom, so to speak. My noble friend in fact said that there were 15,000 meter spaces in central London. My information is that there are only 10,000 meter spaces in London. This reduction was largely as a result of the Labour GLC policy to cut parking spaces. At the same time, residential parking bay numbers went up so that, on the one hand, we are using the streets as permanent garaging for residents (and there must be something odd about that) while depriving the transient mover the rightful space and the turnover that the noble Lord wants.
I think there is one other point. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned that if certain amounts of money were diverted to public transport and it was improved, then people would use it. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell me what happened to the £19 million surplus on meter fees over the last 11 years up and down the country. One just does not seem to have seen much benefit, although the whole idea was that that money was to go twoards improvement of parking.
The Earl of Avon: I am not speaking to answer that particular question from my noble friend. It is a little wide of the mark. He queried my figure of 15,000 parking meters in Central London. I gather that there are 10,000 in Westminster and 15,000 in Central London.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Those figures make it even more disappointing—10,000 in Westminster and 15.000 in Central London. There is not much hope for Central London. However, in view of what my noble friend Lord Avon has offered, to have further discussions on this matter, I think that the best
404
thing I can do is to withdraw the amendment now and, if necessary, return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 58, line 31, leave out ("another person") and insert ("a traffic warden").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like my noble friend to tell me whether anybody at all, whom a constable authorises, can clamp a motor car. Can the Commissioner of Police or whoever is responsible engage an entrepreneurial firm of wheel clamp fixers with mobile vans and appliances and entrust them with this job? Are they going to be told, "Go round to everything you see on a double yellow line, half parked on the pavement in Beauchamp Place, or overstaying its welcome on a meter, or which has been on a meter space for more than two hours, fix one on, and bring me the list"? Can he ask a traffic warden to do this job, or can it be done only by a constable?—bearing in mind again Lord Mishcon's remarks with regard to the responsibility of the traffic wardens which my noble friend answered. We really want to know who is going to have the first and ultimate authority for imposing this additional and iniquitous penalty upon an offending motorist. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I should like to ask the opposite question. Who has authority to unclamp a vehicle; and how do you reconcile subsection (3) with subsection (5) because subsection (3) says that a vehicle can be released from its clamp only by a constable? I emphasise "only". Subsection (5) says:
"A constable may authorise another person to take under his direction any action that the constable has power to take for the purposes of this section".
How do you reconcile those two subsections and how is a lower court—because I take it it will be the lower courts which will have to interpret this clause—to reconcile those two subsections?
If what is meant is that another person besides the constable can be authorised by him to unclamp the vehicle, I hope that that is right, and I question Lord Lucas's attempt to narrow the effect by saying that not "another person" but only "a traffic warden" may unclamp a vehicle. I think this provision may be undesirable because I foresee a situation where a busy surgeon or somebody of that kind, whom it is obviously in the public interest should not be hampered in his movements, commits the offence of parking illegally. His vehicle is clamped; he goes to pay the money to get it unclamped and the police say, "Yes, we will come along and unclamp it when we have the time. You have been very stupid. We cannot just drop everything and come and unclamp your vehicle. You will have to wait. We will do it as soon as we can". And there may not be a traffic warden available.
I should like to see a situation where the constable is allowed to ring up a garage of good repute—and they know them because they are vehicle testing stations' for instance—and say to them, "Please send round a responsible mechanic to unclamp this car because we are too busy to attend to this at the present time".

405
I hope that the intention is that another person under subsection (5) is allowed to unclamp and that the sort of person I have mentioned will be, on occasions, employed to do the job when the police have other duties, more pressing, to carry out.
Lord Gisborough: May I raise a third question? It is the question of damage. In the event of a policeman locking or unlocking, presumably, there must be a liability for damage should he chip paint off, or whatever. What would be the position with regard to damages to the vehicle if he authorised a third person to do it?
The Earl of Avon: It might be helpful if I paint my picture now. I ought to say to the Committee at this stage that the thoughts I am getting are interesting and I should like to take them back after we have had this general debate to see what we can work out. This is a novelty; this will be an experiment and I shall be happy to be guided by the Committee on the way they are thinking. I should like to say at the moment how we are thinking so that I can get the Committee's reactions.
In the initial experimental period of operation, I understand that the Metropolitan Police intend to use their uniformed vehicle-removal officers. I do not know whether that fits in with the noble Lord's idea of somebody who is reliable enough to do it or not. These people at present assist in towing or driving away illegally-parked vehicles and these will be the people who will apply and remove the clamps under the direction of a police officer.
It may be that if immobilisation is successful and the powers are retained, practical experience will dictate changes to these arrangements. The Metropolitan Police civilian staff who assist the police in their duties will not necessarily need the same qualifications currently required by a vehicle-removal officer, for these officers all have heavy goods vehicle drivers' licences for operating "Z" wagons. This will not be necessary when we come to immobilisation.
There is a range of possibilities and this is the reason why the type of people who assist the police is not set out in the clause. Subsection (5) is clear that the persons assisting in immobilisation operations will do so only with the authorisation and under direction of the police constable. It also provides that their actions will be regarded as having been taken by the constable and the police will therefore take full responsibility. It will be for the police to see that unsuitable persons are not employed. My noble friend asked me about damage. I think that we are coming on to that in a later amendment so that I will leave that until later. I hope that I have given the Committee some food for thought.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My noble friend has just said that the holder of a HGV licence is not necessary. If the vehicle is a lorry and the lorry then has to be moved before being clamped in probably another dangerous position, the lorry mover must have an HGV licence.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Underhill: The Notes on Clauses explain in regard to subsection (5) of the clause that work that can be done by another person authorised by a police constable includes immobilisation, release and the collection of charges. Surely, it will be necessary to put into the Bill something different from "another person". "Another person" could be anyone. While the police may decide what they are going to do, surely there ought to be some guidance given as to who "another person" should be, particularly if he is going to have authority to collect charges.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I ask about the clamps and the undoing of them? Do they have a universal key? What happens if the clamper goes off-duty for the weekend and the next one coming on duty does not have the key?
The Earl of Avon: I think that the Committee's imagination is enormous. May I show the Committee how I think the system is going to be working at the moment. There will probably be a small vehicle which will have a series of wheel clamps in it with a team of people. They will go round and clamp something, and put the ticket on the vehicle which will show which police station has to be contacted. The car driver will then go to that police station and the keys will be there. Another team will go out and release the wheel clamp. That will probably allay the fears of the noble Baroness. I have not checked this information for the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but my understanding is that the actual money will be paid at the police station by the car driver when he takes the ticket in there.
Lord Mishcon: We are all expressing a personal point of view, and I am sure that that is understood. Will the noble Lord the Minister not only review some of the points put to him in regard to difficulties on clamping but also consider clamping down on the whole idea? There are so many cases where citizens are going to be furious with the police: where, for example, a car has been left—and we are considering this type of example—on a parking meter because a father has been called back from business because his child is slightly ill. He then finds that he has to wait for the doctor and it is discovered that the child is rather more ill than was first thought. The father goes to his car and sees the clamp on his vehicle. It is bad enough to find that the car has been removed—one goes and collects it; takes a taxi, if one can afford it, or travels on public transport, if it is working.
We are introducing into our transport system under this Bill something that is so dangerous from many points of view in regard to the relationships between the police and the citizen, and there are so many hardship cases that will be caused that I ask the Minister whether all this is worthwhile and should be done.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The more we go into this matter, the more apprehensive one becomes of what is being proposed. I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is a point which I made earlier. There is a real risk of a very significant

407
deterioration in the relationship between the motorists and the Metropolitan Police as a result of this situation. For example, a woman with two or three small children, experiencing the type of weather that we have today may find that the clamp has been put on her parked car. She then tries to find out who is going to come and remove the clamp. The amount of that is going to be engendered by this process will be astonishingly high. I have no doubt that the matter has been carefully thought through by the Ministers, their advisers and the Metropolitan Police, coping as they do with substantial problems in terms of the traffic management of London. I hope that the other aspects of this problem are going to be looked at because, speaking for myself, the more one listens to the debate the more one becomes concerned about what is being suggested. I believe that there is a real risk of an explosion of public anger when these procedures are introduced. It seems to me self-evident that that will arise.
Baroness Denington: The noble Lord the Minister said a little while ago that the Committee seems full of imagination tonight. I think that the Committee is getting quite carried away on this subject. What is proposed is a limited experiment—limited in area—to try to do something about the people who do flagrantly bad things when they are parking their cars.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I thank the noble Baroness for being kind enough to give way. We are debating a particular amendment; not the general principle. We seem to have slid away. If it is the Committee's wish that we go on to the principle in the hope that my noble friend is going to say, "Forget all about it, I will walk away with it" then, fair enough; but in that case we shall have a two-hour debate and let us get on with it. I do not think that that is what the Committee want nor what my noble friend will accede to. It seems to me we should stick to the amendment, giving my noble friend the ideas that he has asked for regarding this aspect; he can have all the rest later on, and then we can come to the principle on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Denington: With the leave of the Committee, I was only trying to provide a slight corrective to the idea that this should all be washed out and forgotten. With the leave of the Committee, if I may say a few words: it is to be an experiment. I think that the police will go very, very gingerly with it. I do not think we are going to have a whole host of irate motorists writing to the newspapers and beseeching your Lordships and people in the other House. It is also to be tried, when we come to a future amendment, for a limited period. That is all that Parliament is asked for. I suggest that something like this ought to be tried in order to deal with, and help the police to deal with, some of the flagrant traffic offences that happen in the inner parts of our crowded cities.
Lord Harvington: I should like to intervene to say that I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris, have put their fingers on the right way of looking at this matter. I do not think that we are going
408
to get better feeling with the police. We need more than anything to get good feeling with the police. It is desperate now. One saw it this afternoon in the Mall where the police were being cursed by everybody there for the mess that is going on outside the Palace and so on. We must do everything that we can to help avoid this. In bringing this in I have every sympathy with the police and the Ministry in wanting to stop illegal parking and put the matter right. I do not feel that this particular method is going to be helpful at all. I entirely agree with the noble Lords who have said this.
Lord Denham: May I support my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth? We are getting a little out of order in having a general debate on this rather limited amendment. I know that a lot of these matters will come out in the wash later. Perhaps we may come to some conclusion on my noble friend's amendment. I would not wish to stop anybody on any side of the Committee from talking about the general scheme at the appropriate time.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: May I thank my noble friend for bringing us a little nearer dinner time? It is quite obvious that my noble friend Lord Avon has had an expression of views in particular with who shall clamp and who shall unclamp. It is quite obvious that there is more imagination in the Committee than in the department and parliamentary draftsmen. That does not surprise me since this measure was only put down a very short time ago. It has not been thought out. This particular subsection of the clause has not been thought out. My noble friend has suggested that we should have a talk about it. If nothing else happens tonight, we can have another talk about it another day. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 97.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Lord Denham: I think this is probably a suitable time at which to resume the House, but before I move that this be done, for the guidance of the Committee perhaps I might suggest that the House will not come back to this particular issue before five minutes past eight.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure
7.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the first of the two Measures passed by the General Synod which I have to ask your Lordships' House to agree shall be presented for the Royal Assent is concerned with new

409
developments in the provision of pensions and retirement housing for clergy, deaconesses and licensed lay workers. It is hard to believe that such provision in the Church of England has only become the shared responsibility of the whole Church in the last 60 years, and that before that the only pension payable to a retired priest came out of the stipend of his successor.
In recent years steady progress has been made both in increasing pensions and in providing a variety of ways in which priests who are ready to retire from full-time work can be assisted with housing in their retirement. Many senior clergymen will tell you very gratefully that the anxieties arising from the prospect of retirement have been considerably reduced for them in recent years. As a diocesan bishop, I know at first hand how helpful the partnership between a diocese and the pensions board can he for those who after 40 years or more in the ministry, living in a series of tied cottages, some larger than they could have wished, now look for a house of their own and the opportunity of continuing to exercise their ministry without having to carry the unceasing burden, day in and day out, of the responsibility for a parish, with all that that means.
This present Measure is a further step in a continuing process of providing more adequately for those who serve the Church of England in the full-time ministry, ordained or lay. It will make possible a further increase in the proportion of the Church Commissioners' general fund allocated to pensions. In the 10 years 1971 to 1981, this doubled from 14 per cent. to 28 per cent. of the total. The pension for full service is now £3,060 a year, and the lump sum payable on retirement after 40 years' service is now £4,900.
One consequence of this is that the Commissioners now devote less of their general fund to stipends, which means that many parishes are now responsible for more than half of their incumbent's stipend. It could well be that not many years from now the laity in the parishes will be entirely responsible for the stipend of the clergy on active service, leaving the commissioners to provide for them in retirement. The group from overseas, known as Partners in Mission, who looked critically at the central structures and management of the Church of England a year or two ago, left us in no doubt whatever that such a development in their judgment would be a thoroughly good thing for the life of the Church in this country.
May I now refer very briefly to the six clauses of this short and modest Measure to amend the Clergy Pensions Measure of 1961. Clause 1 seeks to extend the powers of the Church Commissioners, enabling them to make loans out of capital to the pensions board. Clause 2 makes it possible for a person qualifying for a pension to receive a loan within three years prior to his or her retirement. This will be a great help to those who wish to purchase their retirement house ahead of time and to spread the cost over a longer period. Clause 3 ensures that the pension rights of someone who starts as a licensed lay worker and later in life is ordained to the priesthood are not affected by their change of status. The remaining clauses widen the powers of the investments by the pension board, bringing them into line with the powers exercised by most trustees of pension funds.
The final approval of the General Synod was given to this Measure when a total of 254 votes were given by the bishops, clergy and laity in favour, and there were no votes against. Subsequently, the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament expressed the opinion that the Measure is expedient: another place has concurred in that and I now ask your Lordships to do the same. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for the way in which he has detailed the provisions of this Measure. I am pleased, speaking from these Benches, to give a welcome to the Measure because it will facilitate the efforts of the Church of England in providing for clergy pensions.
I must declare an interest as a Church commissioner although, of course, I have no pecuniary interest. With other commissioners, whether appointed (as I am) or elected by General Synod, our pleasure is to administer without payment the Church estates under Acts of Parliament. As your Lordships will know, the commissioners' income is mainly devoted to clergy stipends and pensions, as well as to housing and, of course, with close accountability to Parliament itself.
As the right reverend Prelate has said, the Measure makes provision for clergy pensions by extending the powers of the Church commissioners to make loans to the pensions board and by granting the other facilities which have also been detailed. I am sure there will be widespread pleasure at the proposals contained in the Measure, for it is the Church's recognition of the value of the work done by the clergy and indeed by other Church workers and the laity within our dioceses. It also provides the occasion to review current practice in respect of the pension funds.
The Measure, as the right reverend Prelate has said, has the full support of the General Synod. It is, of course, known and recognised that our clergy perform an important role not only spiritually but in other vital ways within our communities. It is only fitting and proper that they should have the kind of security which this Measure aims to give. It is interesting to note from the annual report of the Church commissioners, recently published, the figures quoted by the right reverend Prelate; and one is pleased to note the increasing amount which has been devoted to clergy pensions—19·7 per cent. of expenditure in 1981; I think the figure was £17·9 million.
I understand that a simplified system of pension differentials approved by the General Synod in November 1980 was brought into operation on 1st April last and that discussions are being held with dioceses on ways to achieve greater uniformity in administration. All this will be helpful in providing the kind of reward for service to which the clergy are entitled. I am very glad also to say that I believe the Measure to be expedient and that it should receive the support of your Lordships.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I thank my fellow Church Commissioner for his support and for the additional information he has given to your Lordships which, I am sure, is helpful to those who wish to understand the way in which the rather complex arrangement between the Church Commissioners, the pensions board and the dioceses operates to provide adequate pensions and housing for the clergy and lay workers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pastoral (Amendment) Measure
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the second Measure, which I have to ask your Lordships to agree should be presented for the Royal Assent, is also an amendment measure. It is also part of a long, on-going process and, like the previous Measure, it is one that has been laid before Parliament after most careful and detailed consideration by the General Synod, where it received the final approval of the bishops, clergy and laity by a total of 319 votes in favour and none against.
I have no hesitation in saying that this clear and united desire to improve the Pastoral Measure, 1968, is because the prime purpose of that historic and far-reaching Measure was to make better provision for the cure of souls. As the longest serving diocesan Bishop in England, I know that it is the Pastoral Measure which has made it possible for my diocese the better to fulfil its mission to the whole community in West Kent and to use its resources of ministry, money and buildings more effectively. I have probably consecrated more new churches than any of my 103 predecessors in 13 centuries. I have certainly dedicated 21 new places of worship, which is more than double the number that I have seen declared redundant in my diocese.
The Pastoral Measure is concerned with the cure of souls, with a proper regard for our inheritance from the past and with equal concern for our continuing mission. The changes proposed in this amendment Measure by the bishops, acting in Synod with the elected clergy and the elected laity—both, incidentally, elected by proportional representation—are all designed to make better provision for the cure of souls and to provide better machinery for pastoral reorganisation and for dealing with redundant churches. Your Lordships should know that a consolidation Measure is already in hand to facilitate the use of the 1968 Measure and this amendment Measure, as soon as may be. A code of recommended practice was published in 1976 and this, too, will be brought up to date. The Ecclesiastical Committee, in reporting to Parliament that, in their opinion, the present Measure is expedient, noted a number of minor defects in the drafting which they have suggested should be amended
412
on consolidation—a process which they consider highly desirable, in view of the length and complexity of the Measures.
I know that your Lordships would not wish me to go through the 72 clauses and 4 schedules of this Measure, even were I competent to do so, and I stand here alone, like the boy on the burning deck. But your Lordships will expect me to mention those matters which were of concern to the Ecclesiastical Committee in fulfilment of its duty to be watchful for the rights of all our citizens, as well as the considerations which prompted the General Synod to seek to make better provision for the cure of souls.
The title of this Measure states that it makes provision for the 1968 Measure to be extended to the Isle of Man, and also to enable a new body to be established to replace the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches and the Redundant Churches Fund. This is an enabling power given to the Standing Committee of the General Synod, so that it may, if and when it deems appropriate, bring forward, after consultation with the Secretary of State and others, a statutory instrument that will be subject to affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.
Although the present procedure is thought by some to be unduly complicated, and the Synod is, in fact, on record some years ago as having asked for the Department of the Environment to be consulted about such a merger, it seems unlikely that any move will be made in this direction until a good deal more experience has been gained by both these bodies, each of which is a partnership of the Church and State.
Clause 7 of the Measure provides that the right of appeal to the Privy Council by anyone making written representations against a draft pastoral scheme will, in future, be exercisable only with the prior leave of the Privy Council. The Privy Council has itself made very clear that, in its judgment, the grounds for appeal are very limited. For this reason, the necessity to obtain prior leave should save considerable effort, as well as cost, for all concerned. I should perhaps stress that the average number of appeals heard in any year is three and has never reached double figures in any year. Moreover, I can testify from first-hand experience to the great care taken by the Board of Governors of the Church Commissioners, in their consideration of all representations made against a scheme. The Ecclesiastical Committee was satisfied that this limitation on the right of appeal was acceptable, especially as the Privy Council has itself reaffirmed in a recent judgment that the occasions when an appeal will be allowed are likely to be few, and has itself suggested that such a limitation should be made.
There are two other matters upon which the Ecclesiastical Committee commented at some length. The first is the modification of the 1968 Measure, allowing the final decision regarding the demolition of a church, when it is to be replaced by a new church, to rest with the Church Commissioners as an executive body, rather than with the Advisory Board, which, by its very name and nature, is advisory, and which has no other executive functions under the 1968 Measure. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that this proposal provoked a closely fought battle between the "conservationists", on the one hand, and the "pastors", on the other. Both parties can, in my judgment,

413
take heart from the fact that one of the safeguards provided by the agreement between Church and State, when State aid for historic churches in use was finally granted after long years of negotiation, is that the Secretary of State can intervene to hold a non-statutory public inquiry in contentious cases before demolition proceeds, though under the law the eventual decision to demolish rests with the Church Commissioners. Although experience of this procedure is limited as yet to only one case, I am sure that the Advisory Board was right in its original judgment in this matter and that the Department of the Environment most certainly regards this as a considerable safeguard.
The other matter of substance to which the Ecclesiastical Committee drew attention are the powers in Clause 61, under which schemes made under the Pastoral Measure will be able to override Private Acts passed before the commencement of this amending Measure. The Ecclesiastical Committee are of the opinion that the proposed provision is a reasonable one, having regard to the fact that representations can be made against any scheme to the Commissioners, with leave to appeal made to the Privy Council.
This is a complex Measure, but it is one which is of importance for the daily life and mission of many parishes for, as I said at the outset, it is concerned to make better provision for the care of souls. The Church of England holds in trust for the nation not only hundreds of historic and beautiful buildings, but also the pastoral care of several million men and women, boys and girls. We fulfil that pastoral care in a growing partnership with our friends in the Roman Catholic and Free Churches. Bishops and clergy rejoice to work increasingly as partners with the laity in both ministry and mission and the Church of England as by law established, has unique delegated powers from Parliament with which it works in partnership in much more than legislation.
As we know full well at the present time, the year 1919 is a hallowed year for others besides the Church of England, but it is under powers granted in that year and powers by which Church and State have acted in partnership for over 60 years that I beg to move this Measure.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure be pre-presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am sure that once again the House is indebted to the right reverend Prelate for the way in which he has detailed the proposals and has explained their need. I should renew my declaration of interest as a Church Commissioner for the last 14 years, including a period when I was Second Church Estates Commissioner in the other place and had the pleasure to present such Measures there. Experience of some of the changing situations with which this Measure seeks to deal has given me a fuller appreciation of the need for the Measure, and it has also given me an awareness of the sensitivities and the anxieties of the wide range of organisations and individuals interested not only in the function of the Church but in the life and concerns of the wider community.
414
As the Bishop has said, the Measures had a long and justifiably detailed examination by many Church bodies: by the General Synod, plus the demanding scrutiny of the Ecclesiastical Committee and of another place. Having read the evidence and studied the questions and assurances given in the Ecclesiastical Committee, I am pleased now, when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, to say that I welcome also these proposals. I am aware of the concerns expressed by members of both Houses in the Ecclesiastical Committee—particularly, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, about churches no longer required—also as a former member of the Redundant Churches Fund from its formation in 1968 until I became a Government Minister in 1974. I am pleased now to see that action is being taken in the Measure about the problems of the care and maintenance of churches—some of them listed and some not. I accept also the need to balance the priorities which include also—and most important—the needs of new and existing churches, to which reference has already been made, and must of course meet the needs of new and existing communities up and down the country. They, like those whom they serve, have to adapt to changing social patterns. I am of the opinion—as, I am sure, your Lordships' House will be—that the new redundancy and pastoral proposals will meet these needs.
The commissioners, as the Bishop has told us, are very much involved and identified with the details of this Measure, so I shall not go into them. The right reverend Prelate has been good enough to do this. I ought to emphasise—as did he—that the Measure had the overwhelming and total support of the General Synod. It follows a long and thorough review of a changing situation. The proposals will, I believe, enable the Church and all who bear national and, indeed, diocesan and local responsibilities, to work more effectively and more harmoniously in partnership, to the advancement of the Church's mission. I believe there has never been a time when there has been a greater need for all that the Church can offer. I believe that the Measure will help the Church to do the job more effectively in future, and I am pleased to commend it to the House.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Esher: My Lords, as an original member of the advisory board for redundant churches since it was set up in 1969 and its chairman over the last four years or so, I have listened with great interest to the introduction of this subject by the right reverend Prelate. Let me say straight away that my board welcome the whole of the amendment Measure—particularly provisions such as those which allow it to have regard to the condition of churches where a demolition is proposed rather than simply their architectural quality—in particular the provision which allows us to take account of the contents of churches and churchyards which are obviously so vital a part of their ambience and character. But there has been one section of the Measure which, as the right reverend Prelate has indicated, we have not been happy about. In fact, we have never been happy about the loss of the board's veto on demolition in Section 46 cases. Those are cases where the demolition of an old church is proposed in order to make room for

415
a new one. This power to veto such a demolition in a small number of cases is of course anomalous in the sense that it was strange that an advisory body should have executive power at all, but it did enable us to secure a decent alternative use of a fine building as an alternative to demolition in a number of important cases, some of which have been quoted by name in another place.
We also believe that this power has helped to safeguard the ecclesiastical exemption from planning control upon which the Church of England sets so much store, by protecting the Church Commissioners, on occasion, from the very strong diocesan pressures which are bound to exist in cases of this kind where pastoral and architectural considerations are often in direct conflict. When we heard that the loss of this power was mooted, we at once expressed our alarm to all concerned, and particularly to the Department of the Environment. But the department refused to help us because, as a sort of quid pro quo for its financial support of churches in use, it had introduced its new Article 8 non-statutory public inquiry procedure which it believed would be an effective substitute for the board's veto. We therefore—I now think mistakenly—did not pursue our objections. That was what the right reverend Prelate described as our original judgment. It was not a judgment on the merits of the case but was a judgment on how we should proceed. As I said, I believe that in not pressing our objections all the way we not only weakened them but also made rather a nuisance of ourselves.
Then two cases occurred which confirmed our opinion on this matter. Both cases involved mid-Victorian churches by Sir Gilbert Scott. The first was the Church of St. Matthew, Westminster, which is only a few hundred yards from this House and known, I am sure, to many of your Lordships. It has always been a place of worship for Members of both Houses, with a loyal congregation of people from all walks of life. In 1977 the roof of St. Matthew was destroyed by fire and the parish had to do what it could in the ruins to make use of the church, which it did. But a couple of years ago an opportunity occurred which the parish at once saw as an opportunity to rebuild. This was because, on an adjoining site, a commercial developer expected to get permission to put up a block of offices. This project needed a small parcel of church land and this gave the parish an opportunity to raise funds for rebuilding and replacement of the church.
It was a special case with some special urgency because the diocese was well aware that the new GLC was not enamoured of commercial development in principle, and was certainly not enamoured of it in that part of London, and was not likely to be as supportive of this money-making exercise as the previous council might have been. So there was an opportunity and there was a good deal of political urgency to the matter. These are the kind of questions to which I referred earlier.
The diocesan authorities felt so strongly about it that they were prepared to do the job by faculty if the board proved hopelessly obstructive. We did prove obstructive. We were not happy with the demolition of the great part of the church which, apart from being a good Scott church, contained work by Comper and
416
Barclay of considerable interest and beauty. Still less were we happy with the design of the proposed new building. We therefore felt it our duty to press our objections and to refuse a certificate for demolition.
I believe everyone now recognises that the negotiations which ensued were a great success. We recommended the appointment of a consultant who has now been retained to design the restored building in detail. We have saved the whole of the church and we have prevented the building of what many of us felt to be a building of thoroughly unsatisfactory design. None of these things could have been done by public inquiry and it is a recent and excellent example of where the power of veto may make it possible for a good building to be protected and re-used and a bad building avoided. That was the first case which led us to question our decision not to pursue our objections.
The next case was that to which the right reverend Prelate has already referred, which is the Church of Holy Trinity, Rugby. This Scott church was not, in the judgment of the board, of first importance in the very large volume of Scott work which still exists in this country. Therefore, we did not see it as being fund-worthy, but our view was hotly contested by conservation bodies and, as a result, the first of these non-statutory inquiries was held. It was a long, often irrelevant and often entertaining but extremely expensive and time-consuming exercise. At the end of it, the Minister decided that the church ought to be preserved, but, of course, the inquiry being non-statutory, the Minister has no power to ensure that it is, and his decision presented the commissioners with an extremely difficult problem. We felt that this was an illustration of the bluntness of this instrument and the use of a steam hammer to crack what is often a little nut of some complexity but one not susceptible to the simplifications and oratory which take place at such public inquiries.
When we heard, as a result of these two experiences, that the Ecclesiastical Committee itself was unhappy, or at any rate divided, about the loss of the board's veto in cases of this kind we decided to restate our opposition. We did not want to hold up the Pastoral Measure provision which was already much delayed, so we proposed a compromise; either that the Measure be amended or that the Church Commissioners should provide us with an undertaking that there would always be a "cooling-off" period of not less than 12 months to enable the board to go through the kind of exercise which we recently completed so successively with St. Matthew, Westminster. It was this compromise that was so narrowly defeated in the Ecclesiastical Committee.
I would say again that I am not in any sense wishing to question the final judgment or the details of the Pastoral Measure provision. We must all hope that the machinery will indeed work. My board has always had excellent relations with the Church Commissioners. Almost without exception, its London Churches Committee under the chairmanship of Mr William Harris (and of which the right reverend Prelate was himself once a vice-chairman) has taken our advice, even when it was impaled on the horns of the kind of dilemma which I described earlier.
We have very much appreciated this and have been conscious of the courage which this often required.

417
If the Church Commissioners continue to do this, they will be able to avoid the nonsense of a public inquiry and of a Minister's decision which has no binding power and which the Commissioners, with the best will in the world, may not have the financial resources to implement. I am sure that this is the only way in which the commissioners can hope to protect the independence, in planning matters, of the Church of England.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am speaking not for my colleagues who sit on this Bench but as an Anglican layman and as a recent member of the Redundant Churches Fund—to which I should add, by way of sketching in the background, that my wife is a current member of the Redundant Churches Advisory Board. I want to set forth for the record certain surrounding factors which mesh together with the details of the present affair which the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has set forth with such outstanding clarity, and to make one comment. It may be that what I shall say will be familiar to all your Lordships here present, but I think it should appear in Hansard because Parliament as a whole wants to have on the record all the relevant facts about what is done by any of its Committees, and this is the way to do it.
A church declared redundant by the Church authorities may or may not be preserved as a church in a state of redundancy by being passed to the Redundant Churches Fund, which is jointly funded as to half and half by Church and State. The question whether a given redundant church be preserved is the subject of advice from the Redundant Churches Advisory Board. Until the present Measure came before the Synod and before Parliament that advice was in one circumstance mandatory; that is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has said, in the circumstance of proposed demolition. If the board did not think a church should be demolished it could veto demolition by refraining from issuing the necessary certificate. That veto power is removed in the Measure at present before this House. Obviously, I am not going to propose that the House should reject the Measure, but we are not merely taking note of the passage of something; we are on this occasion deciding whether or not this House should pass into law the Redundant Churches Measure.
The House of Commons has already passed the Measure, but it is open to this House, if I understand the constitution correctly, to reject it. The Measure has itself been the subject of a close vote—the figures were 11:10—in the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. This is, therefore, a Measure that came from the Synod in need of parliamentary approval in order to become the law of the land, and the Committee of both Houses of Parliament, the Ecclesiastical Committee, on the advice of which the Houses of Parliament themselves are accustomed to act, divided upon it, and the vote was only 11:10 in favour of passing it into law. The reason was precisely as Lord Esher has been pointing out, the removal of this veto power on demolition from the advisory board.
I should say at this point that, of course, I think there is no Member of either House who has any real
418
doubts about any other part of the Measure except this one very minor provision—when you take the Measure as a whole it is a minor part of it. In proposing it to us the right reverend Prelate said that the abolition of the board's veto power gave rise to a closely fought battle between conservationists and pastors. I was rather struck by that phrase, because it did reawaken various misgivings in my mind which had long existed. It seems to presuppose a drawn battle line where on one side there are those who have no care whatever for the pastoral function of the Church or for the cure of souls, the time honoured phrase the right reverend Prelate used in presenting the Measure, and on the other side those who have no care whatever for the preservation of fine old buildings. It suggests the existence on one side of an entrenched army of conservationists who positively wish the Church to stop caring for souls and to care only for old buildings, and, on the other hand, an entrenched army of pastors who positively wish to see expensive funds-consuming space-consuming fine old buildings demolished in order to provide more money for the cure of souls. I think that one ought to reject this vision of a closely fought battle, and if there is a battle at all to look forward to the day when that battle is a thing of the past and when pastors love fine old buildings like other people and when architectural historians love other Christian souls like other people. I do not believe that day is so far away; indeed I believe it exists at this moment.
At any rate, it is the existence of this battle which I think one has to admit gives Parliament, or certain sectors of Parliament, the elected of the people, misgivings about the present frontier in preservation law between Church and state. The Redundant Churches Fund benefits half and half from Church funds and state funds. But we should not for a moment lose sight of the fact that the state provides 15 times as much financial aid to churches in use, in full pastoral use curing souls, as it provides to the Redundant Churches Fund to keep the old ones standing up.
I will conclude, my Lords, only by saying that I do not believe that this measure can be a permanent resting place in the distribution of conservation functions in regard to Churches, whether in use or out of use, and that the statutory inquiry carried out by the Secretary of State, who has no power to do anything about it in these cases once he has considered the results of the inquiry, is, as Lord Esher has pointed out, an unsatisfactory solution. I believe indeed that it will not be many years before the matter must be returned to; whether in the form of another Pastoral (Amendment) Measure or whether in the form of a Town and Country Planning Bill, perhaps of 1985 or 1990, will become clear in time.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I thank my friends who have spoken, if I may be allowed from these Benches to refer to them in that way, and especially thank the noble Viscount Lord Esher and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for explaining some of the background to what I think some will see as the change of view of the advisory board. I think that what I tried to suggest earlier about partnership of the various bodies involved in

419
this very complex and difficult matter is perhaps the greatest guarantee for the future. I share Lord Kennet's view that we are not probably agreeing upon a final arrangement for all time. There are various other matters which are under active discussion at the present time which may well have a bearing on this matter.
What I think one can say with some confidence is that, as a result of the considerable discussion that has taken place about this amendment Measure, all the partners involved, the Synod, the Commissioners the Redundant Churches Fund and the advisory board, will be the more concerned to work together in dealing with some of the more difficult situations that arise; and I hope very much that we shall find that the two parties that I rather unwisely stuck labels on will work happily together both in the cause of extension of the cure of souls and in the maintenance of our historic buildings.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.8 until 8.10 p.m.

Transport Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 51.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 59, line 23, after ("section") insert (""disabled person's badge" means any badge issued, or having effect as if issued, under any regulations for the time being in force under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons); and").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 59, line 23, leave out ("anything") and insert ("a device of a type approved in regulations made by the Secretary of State,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move amendment No. 100 and for the convenience of the Committee I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Indeed, your Lordships will notice that both he and I have our names down to Amendment No. 100.
Subsection (10) of this clause reads:
"In this section 'immobilisation device' means anything designed or adapted to be fixed to a vehicle".
In our view that is far too wide. "Anything" can mean what it says—anything. It could mean a variety of implements or devices which could be designed or adapted for the purpose of preventing the vehicle being driven or put in motion. It may be that there could be found in use some highly undesirable or unsuitable devices. I think that it may be argued that this will be a matter for the separate chief constables. But the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that only those
420
devices which have been specifically approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State, may be used anywhere to immobilise a vehicle under this clause. This would seem to be a most desirable amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I support the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in Amendment No. 100, which is so very similar to Amendment No. 101. The noble Lord has, of course, put the point quite clearly. We want to ensure that we do not get a number of mechanical devices which are patently unsuitable and which, in fact, might be copied. One can think of chains, for example, with a padlock on the end. That is a very simple, rather nonsensical way of looking at the situation. So any device that may ultimately be used in this rather objectionable system would have to be a device that is not going to cause damage; is not going to impede a passer-by or a passing cyclist or somebody of that nature; and is, therefore, going to be subject to some specification approved by the Minister. I can see no reason why my noble friend cannot accept an amendment as simple as this one.
Lord Gisborough: I should like briefly to support the amendment and to say that having the right type of device might save a great deal of money in damages in the long run.
Lord Airedale: I rise to give support from these Benches. I entirely agree with the amendment. When we consider breathalysers, we remember that Parliament was very careful to decide that any old breathalyser that a police force chose to use, would not do; it had to be a very special device, properly approved centrally. With the Bill as it stands, a policeman could use his ingenuity—as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has suggested—by chaining a car to a lamp post, for instance, which might be very enterprising of him, but it would hardly be the type of conduct which Parliament had intended.
The Earl of Avon: I accept that there may be ingenious devices which are less safe. However, I should like to make one point. I understand that the police have demonstrated a device of the type they are considering to the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People, who were concerned about the possibility that it might project beyond the car over the pavement. I am sure that the Committee will welcome the fact that these discussions have taken place, and I believe they indicate the responsible approach which can be expected from the police in matters of public safety.
I note the support of the Committee for the amendment. What I should like to propose is that both noble Lords withdraw their amendments and the Government will put down something on Report which will be slightly more on the lines of the second amendment rather than the first. Will the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, agree to that?
Lord Underhill: Speaking for myself, I welcome the offer of the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 59, line 28, leave out subsection (12) and insert—
("(12) This section shall extend only to the City of Westminster but may be extended to such other areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 102. This is a short amendment, but it is important. When introducing the new clause relating to mobilisation devices during the Report stage in the other place, the Secretary of State said:
"The clause will enable me to authorise the police to use clamps experimentally in certain areas".
He went on to say:
"The intention is to designate only limited areas in the Metropolitan Police district where there is widespread and persistent illegal parking".
However, that is not evident from the clause as drafted.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I—in whose names this amendment is put forward—believe that the area in which the experiment is conducted must be clearly defined in the Bill. The London Borough of Westminster, in our view, satisfies the Secretary of State's criteria and is a suitable area for the experiment. Naturally, if the noble Earl thought that there was another area in London that ought to be designated, we would readily withdraw the wording, of the amendment.
The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to provide specifically that immobilisation devices may only be used within—we say—the London Borough of Westminster during the experimental period. Any extension of the area to other places would be, by order, made by statutory instrument and a subsequent amendment, which we shall come to later, provides that any such order shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
As I said earlier, on another amendment, when we come to deal with the question, Whether the clause shall stand part, it will be seen that I am one of those in favour of the clause in general, but I take the view that it should be made absolutely clear that it is an experimental area for an experimental period. Unless there is something defined on the lines of this amendment, the Secretary of State would be free, if he so desired, to have this experiment over a large number of areas which we think will be undesirable. I beg to move.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation because I must confess that I was not quite sure of the reason why this amendment had been tabled. The clause, as introduced, is so drafted that the power of the police to use immobilisation devices shall not have effect in any area, unless an order has been made under subsection (12). My right honourable friend has indicated that for the first designated areas he has in mind an experiment, in limited areas of the Metropolitan Police District, and for a limited period. Whether any further designations follow would depend very much on the outcome of that experiment. No decision has yet been taken on the areas to be used for the experiment and this is a matter which will be discussed between the Department of Transport, the Home Office, the police, the GLC and the boroughs concerned.
422
The police have identified three areas where persistent illegal parking is a particular problem, and where they think an experimental scheme may go ahead. But no decision has yet been taken. It may well be that the first designated area will include part of the Borough of Westminster—and I emphasise the word "part". I understand that the borough is keen that it should. But it may also include parts of other boroughs.
I cannot see an advantage at the moment in taking the decisions in advance of the discussions which have to take place, and writing them into the Bill. I am advised that the amendment may have the effect of making this part of the Bill hybrid.
I can assure the Committee that the case for including all or part of Westminster in the initial designation order will be carefully and sympathetically considered. Indeed Westminster's encouraging initial response to my right honourable friend's inquiries about opportunities for increasing short-term parking supply has made designation all the more likely.
I take the noble Lord's point. Perhaps I can study it and see whether we can come some way to meet him. Equally, I hope he will realise that we are not trying to do anything, as it were, behind the scenes, and that what he has put down might not be the convenient way to go.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My noble friend the Minister unhappily, again, used the phrase "persistent offender". He said that the police had identified three areas where there are persistent offences, which, of course, implies persistent offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I are seeking to determine here and now where the experiment shall take place. Although my noble friend said: "and a number of other areas"—and these orders will, of course, have to come before Parliament—it would certainly be very much more helpful if we knew exactly where it would happen. Then we would know the authority, which would remove a great number of doubts.
That the City of Westminster appears to be an area where many offences are committed is perhaps not surprising. That this may prove, quite quickly—say, in two years' time—whether or not this system is effective, is again a good thing. So if one proceeds with this matter, the sooner one gets it into a tight-knit area which can be quickly and easily monitored, the better it will be.
Lord Gisborough: This also worries me, because I think that it is the thin end of a wedge which could well be tried elsewhere by other towns. Most other towns have no traffic problems resembling those of London, but they consider that their traffic situation is very bad. If this was successful in Westminster—which it could well be—the next thing to happen would be that on a Friday morning in this House we would have an affirmative resolution which would pop through, and before long we would find every police constable in every large country town trying to introduce it in his area.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I think that the phrase "City of Westminster" may be slightly too limiting, although I, personally, know that the City of West-

423
minster would welcome clamps being available to them and think that it would do a great deal to solve the problems there. But this may be an inner London problem. I understand that the only areas in which meters are financially viable are Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Camden, which means a very small part of inner London. These are the areas with the very great amount of illegal parking.
Although I, personally, would be delighted to see this scheme passed for Westminster, it may well be that there are areas of Kensington and Chelsea which suffer just as badly, and it may simply be that there is not one here to speak up on their behalf.
Baroness Denington: I suggest that we would be wise at this stage not to press this, but that we should wait for the Report stage to see what the Government come back with as slightly amended wording.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was about to suggest the same thing. Now I know exactly what the two noble Lords want in this amendment, I shall see whether we can progress towards something in that direction.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I believe he said that any areas would be involved by affirmative resolution procedure. I think that that is what I heard. We are providing for that in our subsequent amendments, which we have not reached. But subsection (12) says:
"This section shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
In the later Clause 58 I cannot see that Clause 51(12) is listed as one of those for the affirmative procedure. We are very anxious that Parliament will be able to take this decision either by writing something into the actual clause or by affirmative resolution. However, as the noble Earl has said that he will take this back and look at it, I am satisfied and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 59, line 29, at end insert ("; but the Secretary of State may not extend this section to an area unless requested to do so by the authority responsible for traffic regulation in that area.
(13) For the purposes of subsection (12) above, the authority responsible for traffic regulation in any area is—

(a) in relation to any area in Greater London, the Greater London Council;

(b) in relation to any area in England and Wales other than an area in Greater London, the council of the county; and

(c) in relation to any area in Scotland, the regional or islands council.

(14) The operation of an order extending this section to any area to which it did not extend immediately before the order comes into force may be limited to a period specified in the order; and any order extending this section to an area for a limited period may be continued in force by another order under this section either for a further limited period or without limit of time.
(15) Subsection (14) above is without prejudice to the power exercisable by virtue of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978 to revoke, amend or re-enact any order made under this section.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment
424
I shall obviously be trespassing on Amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 107, which we said earlier would be acceptable to the Committee. I shall also be talking to Amendment No. 121. These amendments provide answers to the same questions: in what circumstances will the immobilisation powers be extended to any area? Will the first use of the powers in an area be decided solely by the Secretary of State? Will it be time limited? What provision should be made for extending the powers, or making them permanent if the initial experiment is a success? What follows if the initial experiment is a failure? I shall now try to cover some of these points. The Government answer is, we think, at Amendment No. 103. This fulfils commitments given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in response to the debate in another place.
First, the immobilisation powers will not be extended to any area unless the traffic regulation authority for that area so requests. The traffic regulation authority has been defined consistently with the allocation of powers to make traffic regulation orders in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, as amended by the Local Government Act 1972. Secondly, the amendment would allow the order introducing them to any area for the first time to incorporate a time limit. The Secretary of State has in mind a 12 months time-limit for the initial order, which will designate limited areas of the Metropolitan Police District. I may add that the GLC and the London boroughs have already indicated their support for the proposed experiment. This has also been supported by many groups representing road users, including London Transport and the London Region Roads and Transportation Committee of the CBI.
I hope these amendments will meet much of the concern expressed about these proposals. In particular they ensure that immobilisation will not be introduced in areas where the traffic regulation authority sees no case for them, and they make clear on the face of the Bill the intention that the first use of the powers will be experimental and limited.
I submit that these amendments are a fair response to the questions that have been raised. They will, through the negative resolution procedure, give the House the opportunity to debate orders made at the various stages of operation of the power. If a debate is needed and requested, it can be held. This will apply when the first orders are laid before the House. It will apply if they are renewed; it will apply if in future years the powers are requested in other areas; and it will apply if designations are revoked.
I believe it would be unnecessary, and potentially a waste of parliamentary time, to require the affirmative resolution procedure for these orders. Imagine, for example, a situation where the powers had been operating successfully in an area, but because of a very localised problem a need arose to extend the boundary of the designated area, perhaps by only a few streets.
Given that the extension would have to be requested by the traffic regulation authority, it hardly seems necessary, as the proposed new subsection (19)(a) would require, to make the steps subject to affirmative resolution. If the initial experiment with wheel clamps is adjudged a failure, the House is unlikely to be troubled with further orders. I shall listen with

425
interest to what noble Lords have to say, but I suggest that 103 would provide all, or more than all, of the opportunities that the Committee may require for further debate on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I am very pleased that the noble Earl has emphasised the experimental nature of the proposals. When introducing the new clause in the other place the Secretary of State said:
"I am happy to make it clear that there will be a period of about 12 months during which the experiment will run, after which it would be in order for the House to debate whether the order to designate their use in the Metropolitan Police district should be revoked".
We consider it desirable that that should be made clearer in whatever final clause the Committee determines upon.
The clause as drafted does not make it clear that the use of the devices will be for a limited period only. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I believe that the period during which the experiment is to continue should be clearly defined in the new clause, and any extension of the period should be by order made by statutory instrument. That is why we moved 102, but as the noble Earl has said that he will take this back, that position may be clarified at Report stage. If the wording of 103 is to be accepted, that the Secretary of State will not extend the section to an area unless requested by the authority responsible for traffic regulation, I wonder whether the words should not be added "and unless satisfied to do so". In other words, he does not just act upon a request from the traffic regulating authority. The Secretary of State himself must be satisfied that it is desirable that this area should be extended for the experiment.
There should be more control than a request by a traffic regulation authority. Amendment No. 107 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is complementary to our Amendment No. 106 which makes those provisions. Amendment No. 107 provides that any extension of the period, or area of use, will be by order made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This will ensure that the experiment is not extended without the express approval of both Houses of Parliament after full debate has taken place. We would hope on presentation of a report which would review the experiment. I hope that the report will be successful, but any decision to continue must be based on a review.
The new subsection (14) in the Government Amendment 103 which provides for the extension of the section to additional areas and for an additional period seems to me to be somewhat complicated wording. It may be my own lack of reading it correctly, but it seems rather involved draftsmanship. If we are going to stick to this amendment, 103, I wonder whether that could be improved. Amendments 106 and 107 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and myself, would be more precise and more immediately understandable.
Then we have Amendment 105 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Paragraph (a), I suggest, would appear to be unnecessary as subsection (12) of the clause provides that the first area will be specified by order. Paragraph (b) in Amendment 105 would seem to be covered more effectively by the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord
426
Lucas—this gets involved—106 and 107. I hope that the Government will accept that the affirmative resolution is required for an extension. It is, in the Secretary of State's own words, "intended to be an experiment".
The new clause was introduced in the other place only at Report, so this has been the first opportunity for either House to consider amendments. There was no opportunity in the other place. Instead of asking the Committee to determine on all these amendments tonight, I wonder whether, in the light of the discussion, the noble Earl would think it better if the Government amendment and all the other amendments, after we have considered them, were all taken back for a complete review, because it would appear to me that there are some good points in most of the amendments, which would be subject to a good review for a firm amendment to come forward on Report.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I must apologise that I was not here at the beginning of the discussion on this particular clause. The word "experiment" is being used many times, but I cannot find it anywhere in the Bill. Reference has been made to the relationships between the police and the public, and it would help them if it were quite clear that this is an experiment and stated as such in the Bill. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could do that.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In this collection—if that is the right word—of amendments, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for explaining clearly not only his point of view but also mine, because I do not dissent from him in his enjoining my name with the process of argument. There are two points I want to emphasise. First, the Secretary of State must be satisfied, and a full and proper argument must be put forward, before any authority is given the power to conduct either an experiment or introduce these measures.
Amendment No. 105 really sets down an insurance that details of the proposed experiment must go before Parliament for approval before implementation. It seems to me from our earlier arguments that this is vital. There are so many loose and untidy areas that Parliament in total has to have a look at this. Then I think, as did the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that we have to monitor it. Therefore, it has to be a fairly contained experiment, and a report to come before Parliament.
I have said before that traffic experiments tend to be the forerunners of regulations in perpetuity. This is likely to happen also, unless we have such a provision as is suggested in Amendment No. 105. Taken together, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggests, it would seem to me that my noble friend, together with the Government, can pick the bones of it, put the best hits together, and come up with a composite which quite easily might meet almost everybody's requirements in this matter.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful for the suggestions from both noble Lords and from the noble Baroness. May I take up one or two points from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and from the noble Lord, Lord

427
Lucas, about being satisfied. The Secretary of State does not have to act on a request, so to that extent the noble Lords would be much happier. I shall try to see whether we can work in some other term along the lines noble Lords have suggested. Obviously, we are going to have to change it a bit, and I take to heart Lord Underhill's point on drafting, and we shall see what we can do.
I also noted my noble friend Lady Platt's remarks about "experiment" not being in the Bill. Again, I shall find out why it is not in the Bill, and if we can put it in the Bill, we shall certainly try to do so. I know we have different periods of terms here for experimental purposes; some have one year and some have two years. I have at the back of my mind a suggestion which I hope might be practical for the noble Lords. Basically, we should look for the affirmative resolution to take place when the experimental period is ended rather than to have to keep it for all the bits after that. If we can get that drafted, I shall try to get it done by Report. I think I have covered most of the points but, if not, I will see what I can do about them when I read Hansard.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: It might help my noble friend when he is considering the experimental point if I remind him that when the Minister moved the clause on 24th May, reported at column 675, he used the word "experimentally" because he said that he had been persuaded to introduce it experimentally.
Lord Mishcon: I intervene only for the benefit of noble Lords who are completely unhappy with the powers in Clause 51, anyway. I wish to make it clear that those of us who feel that way obviously reserve our right, when it comes to the clause stand part, to take the view of the Committee, if that is a sensible course, on the whole question of Clause 51. I should not like the Minister to feel that those who accede to the question of his considering the various amendments and coming forward with a composite, means that those of us who feel very strongly about the clause will be debarred from a discussion on the clause stand part and expressing our views on the clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 59, line 29, at end insert—
("(16) If any vehicle suffers damage whilst immobilised by a device fixed in accordance with this section, the Police Authority shall compensate the owner should there he no opportunity for him to obtain compensation elsewhere.").
The noble Lord said: We here follow to some extent a point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. We are really asking who is going to pay, for any damage sustained, to the owner—technically we should call him the keeper—of the vehicle, or any third party, as a result of a vehicle being immobilised by a device fixed in accordance with the regulations. This matter is not as simple as it looks. It seems evident that because a device is being fixed to a car, the owner or keeper—at any rate, the driver—should not suffer any greater penalty than the penalties which the law provides; a fine, court costs and so on. That
428
he should then suffer a further penalty because damage was done to the motor car, perhaps by moving it—about which the insurance company may say: "This damage was caused in furtherance of an offence and therefore you are not covered"—leads one to ask who will be responsible for any compensation.
Whatever the device looks like, and to whichever side of the motor car it is fixed, suppose a pedal cyclist, pedestrian or blind person hits himself against it. If it were, say, a mirror, the owner could say: "It is my responsibility. I am covered by insurance under my public immunity policy". But suppose it is a device fitted by somebody else which causes the injury. Who, then, is likely to pay? It has been suggested to me during the dinner adjournment that we should ask what will happen if a vehicle is immoblised and is illegally parked outside a property which catches fire. What happens if nobody is able to get to the fire—perhaps the fire engines cannot get near enough—and helpers cannot get to the scene? Suppose some tragedy occurs and somebody takes an action against the owner of the motor car, whose vehicle was illegally parked, but who has now had an immobilising device fixed to it, so nobody can push it out of the way. Who will be responsible for that kind of damage? I do not intend proceeding further with the amendment, but I should like to know the answer.
Lord Underhill: I wish to express general approval with the line the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is taking, although the wording of the amendment may need some adjustment. For instance, I am a little concerned with the words:
"should there be no opportunity for him to obtain compensation elsewhere".
I am advised that that could possibly mean that it would limit the motorist's opportunity and right to get compensation elsewhere. On the other hand, if damage occurs as the result of a wheel clamp being fixed—"wheel clamp" is a simpler term to use than "immobilisation device"—by a police authority, it seems only right and proper that the police authority should be liable for compensation for damage that might occur as a result of that device being fixed. Most motorists will be covered by an insurance policy, but in my view that should not cut out compensation which should rightly be paid by the police authority. Therefore, while the wording may require some adjustment, I suggest that the amendment is on the right lines and I hope that the Government will either accept it or themselves consider bringing forward a provision to deal with the matter on Report.
The Earl of Avon: Again, I am grateful to both noble Lords for explaining exactly what they had in mind. In considering the amendment, I think it would be helpful, first, to say that negligent action by the police which leads to damage, either to an immobilised vehicle or to a third party, would be a proper subject for civil action for damages against the police. Indeed, I understand that, when on occasion a vehicle has been damaged in the course of the exercise of vehicle removal powers, the police have been prepared to settle reasonable claims outside the courts.
I cannot of course guarantee the outcome of any civil action arising out of the application of the powers in

429
the present clause. Much would depend upon circumstances. But we have deliberately avoided any provision which would give the police specific protection from action for damages. A clause tabled in another place included a subsection which would have given the police specific indemnity from any liability in respect of the loss of, or damage to, any vehicle immobilised. We do not think it appropriate to give such sweeping indemnity.
The intention of the present amendment is to require the police authority to compensate the vehicle owner in certain specified circumstances. It would, for example, require the police to pay for any damages caused by a third party to an immobilised vehicle, the only qualification being that there should be no opportunity for the vehicle owner to obtain compensation elsewhere. This would presumably oblige the police to compensate in any case where the cause of the damage could not be identified, or had not been witnessed, or in cases where the person had been identified but, for one reason or another, could not be obliged to pay compensation. The amendment, we believe, makes the police responsible whether or not they had been at fault, whether or not they had been negligent in the exercise of the power and whether or not they had used the power in such a way as to lead to damage which could reasonably have been foreseen and avoided. I appreciate that perhaps my noble friend had not intended to go that far, or maybe he had. In any event, I can see the way in which his mind is working.
I believe that these considerations would be relevant in any claim for damages, and it is for this reason that we feel the issue of damages should be left, should it arise, to the courts, rather than dealt with in a predetermined fashion prescribed in the Bill. I have noted what both noble Lords said. I will read their speeches in the Official Report to see whether we can go any further towards my noble friend on the point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to my noble friend for that offer to have a farther look to see whether the matter can be clarified. He did not in fact read my mind quite as accurately as he thought, for I had no intention of going as far as I obviously have. I simply wanted to find out the Government's thinking on the matter. The Committee will know that I have some reservations about the kind of insurance most people have. With my noble friend's assurance, I too would like to look at the matter again, and perhaps have a chat with him about it at a later stage, but I do but not wish to pursue the matter further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 not moved.]
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 51 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: We now come to the end of a fairly long debate on Clause 51, a new clause introducing new measures to punish parking offenders. From Second Reading onwards I have made no secret
430
of my total objection to and abhorrence of the clause and its proposals. I have made it abundantly clear that I believe that the Government and the department have for some years failed miserably to tackle the problems of non-compliance with parking regulations in Central London.
I have also made it abundantly clear that I find the clause objectionable in that it does not meet the objective of punishing the persistent offender who fails to meet his obligations under a parking ticket. The number of traffic wardens has been reduced in Central London over the last few years. Indeed, people cannot be found to do the job; it is too difficult. Due to the time factor involved, it is not possible to catch up with persistent offenders. So it is resolved to shame people by the method proposed in the clause. This is compounding the follies of the past, pouring more and more into an old, leaking bucket—and that does nothing towards finding a solution.
I do not want to take a long time in pursuing this part of the debate, and I must say that almost irrespective of what might be said to me in reply, I propose to ask your Lordships' Committee to decide whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. There are four basic reasons for my action. The clause first appeared in the proceedings in another place at the Committee stage. It was withdrawn, following a very brief discussion, and was reintroduced at Report stage. There have been very few discussions and consultations on the matter. Indeed, there are many gaps in what is proposed, as has been evidenced by contributions from noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to what I regard as the very notable contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has had so much experience in the Home Office in matters concerned with relations between the police and the public.
My noble friend Lord Avon said that he was amazed at the imagination displayed by your Lordships' Committee. I would say that that is only part of the kind of imagination that is running through motoring circles, including the motoring press, and the motoring organisations, with regard to this matter. My noble friend has been generous enough—perhaps even obliged—on a number of occasions to say that he has listened to the argument and will consider it. I do not say this in any bitter spirit at all, but from that it is quite evident that the clause has not been thought out.
Let us consider the reason for introducing the clause—the enforcement failure, the non-compliance. In this regard two very good papers have been published quite recently. One appeared in the Traffic Engineering and Control magazine of June of this year, written by Mr. J. R. Elliot, the principal engineer of traffic planning with Westminster City Council, and Mr. C. C. Wright, the head of school and reader in civil engineering at the Middlesex Polytechnic. The other paper was written by Professor A. D. May, professor of transport engineering at the University of Leeds. Each of those authors said that it pays one to take the risk. The chances of being caught parking illegally are about one in 10. Having been caught, the average cost is about £16. It might go up to £51, if the car is towed away. Nevertheless, one is still quids in.

431
If one considers the parking time, the walking time, the convenience time, and the penalty time, and convert them all into money, it is cheap to take the risk. The risk is taken because of the basic failure of local authorities to provide adequate parking spaces.
A car park in, I think, Spring Gardens, near Trafalgar Square, and run, I believe, by Avis, charges £4.40 for five hours', parking. My goodness! that car park is near enough to Trafalgar Square and the lower end of Piccadilly. There should be more such car parks. For example, there is no reason why alongside the Thames there should not be a number of car parks similar to that constructed in the House of Commons a few years ago. This is what should happen; more parking spaces should be provided. I do not want to hear arguments to the effect that it would cost too much, because the cost of non-compliance, the cost of the entire city grinding to a halt in 20 years' time, would be so enormous that today's expenditure would be so relatively small.
Those are my basic objections to the clause. We should find better ways to deal with the problem. There are better ways to deal with it. If the department wants to know some of them, I should be happy to tell it. Of course, it is perfectly true that I do not have the responsibility of enforcing the measures. The bankruptcy of ideas worries me enormously. The reluctance to surge forward, to recognise the era of the car, worries me—and it is the car, not the lorry, that causes this kind of problem.
I do not think that we should accept the clause until other enforcement ideas which are part of the Bill—the new penalty scheme and so on—and other avenues have been more fully explored. The answers that we have had this afternoon do not encourage me to go forward with this experiment in its present form, and I would not wish the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Tanlaw: I should like very much to support what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, for the same reasons as he advanced. The noble Earl will recall that on Second Reading of the Bill I was not happy with the present clause for technical reasons, and I am still not happy with it, since I have heard nothing to convince me that the clause can work. I also believe, in regard to the experimental aspect, that a period of even up to two years will not provide the information that is required, for the reason that I am about to give.
The noble Earl may recall that I previously mentioned the question of the electronic lock, and since the Second Reading I have had discussions with the police engineering section. The situation is exactly the same as it was two years ago. The police have no method of entering a vehicle that is fitted with an electronic or electro-magnetic lock system.
In answering the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on his Amendment No. 94, the noble Earl said that the police must have the means and the time to move the vehicle from one place to another. Some Continental manufacturers are advertising a type of lock, about which I am concerned, which has 59,000 combinations. I contend that in two years' time many vehicles will be fitted with such locks. The police have been so keen on using the "Chicago boot" and the "Boston shoe", as I believe they are called among policemen, and I
432
cannot understand why there has been no consultation or liaison between the technical department of the police—that department has been worried for two years about this particular aspect—and those who want to introduce the system that we are now considering of putting a vehicle in stocks.
I believe that the clause is altogether unsound. I do not think that the technical side of it has been worked out. The situation already is that the police cannot enter and move expensive vehicles, to put it crudely. They cannot move the Rolls-Royces of this world; they cannot gain entry to them because even the mechanical lock system is too complicated. They cannot move certain large Continental vehicles. If they are going to move cars, are they going to be only the ones belonging to those in the lower income bracket? At the moment that is the position, that the vehicle removal officers cannot move large cars without damaging them. They certainly cannot work the steering locks of the more expensive vehicles.
I do not believe the police have thought this out. I do not believe that, as this clause stands, it is at all fair, because it is the small man in the small car who is going to get these clamps put on his car. The large car, or the car with electronic locks—these locks are already available today, and they will be multifarious in the years to come—will be safe, for the simple reason that the police method of entry into a vehicle is exactly the same as that of criminal entry into a vehicle for theft. They use the same tools and the same method. So if you protect a vehicle against theft you also successfully, as I believe an electronic lock does, protect that vehicle against entry by the police. I have heard nothing this afternoon or this evening which convinces me that the police can enter the vehicles and drive them away in order to make this clause workable.
Lord Underhill: We have had such an airing of this that I need be only very brief. I can understand all the problems. That is why it is that, among other noble Lords, I have been so insistent that we should treat this as of an experimental nature—and that should remain quite clear right through the piece. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that there has been a bankruptcy of ideas, but I know (and the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, will be able to confirm what I am saying) that the GLC, through its transportation department, has been considering (this is completely non-political; there are no politics in this) the problem of London's congestion. Over a period of years it has been considering all sorts of ways to tackle it. I have been told that 70,000 cars were towed away in one year.
The police have four options, or they will have: removal, the fixed penalty ticket, prosecution or immobilisation. This will be an additional option for them. The GLC, through its detailed investigations, reviews and policy documents, has come down in favour of an experiment of this kind with an immobilisation device. The Metropolitan Police are really keen about it. They believe this is essential to assist in the solution of the traffic problem in London. London Transport are heartily in favour of it as a way to help clear clearways; and lots of responsible bodies in London believe we ought to have this experiment. I think it must be an experiment; that is why I want it to be so

433
carefully made out to be an experiment. But it is one which has been really thought out; and for all the reasons that my noble friend Lady Denington put forward in her earlier speech, which I hope she will amplify, I hope your Lordships will support this clause.
Lord Mishcon: I rise as an indication of the fact that there is no question of politics in this at all. Therefore, my appeal is to all sections of the Committee. Indeed, I am even trying by this speech to convert (such an optimist am I) my noble friend Lord Underhill to take a different view from the one he has just taken. If I may summarise my reasons for saying that, and the reasons given by other people in the course of the debates on the various amendments, I will do it as follows.
First, this clause does not even provide that where there is a danger found as a result of the parking of a vehicle there should be given to the police the rather special power to fasten this piece of mechanism to a vehicle so that it is clamped and cannot be moved, with it being an offence for anybody to try to move it other than an authorised person, or to interfere with the clamp—that applies to the owner of the vehicle and to the driver of the vehicle—with a fine of up to £200 if he tries to do it. Therefore, one has to wait for the police to arrive—one may think a great waste of police time and energy, and so on—in order that the vehicle can he unclamped.
It is not a question, under this clause, of the vehicle having to be in a dangerous situation. The clause reads as follows:
"Where a constable finds a vehicle on a road which has been permitted to remain at rest there"—
if I may pause there, "at rest there includes, as we know from other discussions, even if it is parked on a meter but is over its time on a meter—
"in contravention of any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment",
he may do all the things that we have been learning about by way of immobilisation.
Not only is this unjust, and can be seen to be unjust; not only does it impose a discretion on the police which I think is far too wide: as has been said on previous debates, even as an experiment it will create such hostility between the public and the police force as to make this provison in this section an absolute menace to that relationship. That is what worries me more than anything.
If, as has been said so properly, this had been considered very carefully in another place, if it had been properly debated and as a result of it all had come forward in a way which had regarded all the mechanical points which have just been made and all the points made in the various amendments which the noble Lord the Minister said he would very kindly consider, we might have said to ourselves, "Maybe our judgment is wrong". We are the judges of this clause, because it has not been properly considered anywhere else and the amendments that we have been discussing today have not been properly considered. So your Lordships may think that this one of the many cases where the value of this Chamber is exhibited, and where that value ought to be utilised in a constructive way.
There is no way of properly amending this clause.
434
This clause should not stand part of this Bill; and I personally hope (because this is purely a personal view, as has been made obvious by all the speakers) that the Committee will say that this is an intrusion upon rights; this is an example of too much discretion being given to police constables, who are but human; and this is an invitation to so many hardship cases, as your Lordships heard—doctors who suddenly find themselves in this position; people who have been called to an invalid, to a bedside; priests who have been called to people who are dying; then finding their cars immobilised in this way because of some minor contravention of a traffic or parking regulation. I ask the Committee to throw this clause out.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: Before the noble Lord sits down might I ask a question, because I regret that some of us were not in the Committee during the earlier part of the debate. If a car has been clamped, the driver has to go to find someone to take the clamp off. If the car had been taken away, surely a space would have been left for another car to come. If the clamp is on, then that immobilises the car in the space for another car. Is that correct?
Lord Mishcon: I should love to claim originality for my reply to the noble Baroness. But this was a point raised from the Cross-Benches on one of the amendments and the answer has to be that it is absolutely right. Although this is supposed to relieve the parking problem, and especially the overstay on the parking meters, the vehicle, immobilised, must occupy that space until the police arrive with an authorised person to unclamp.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I say a few words on safety? We live in an era, unfortunately, of terrorist bombs. What could be worse for the police, for the fire services and for the ambulances if a bomb were to go off demolishing a building and clamped cars obstruct those services which come in to help people who may be in dire need? I should like to ask the Government whether they have considered this fact.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I intervene briefly? I am aware that the hour is getting late. But I have not declared, as I was unable to be here at the Second Reading, my deep-rooted objection to the whole of this clause. I will not be long, but it is important. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, directed us (as did the noble Lord, Lord Lucas) to make your Lordships aware that the other place did not consider this point at all. In fact, this discussion this evening would have been an eye-opener to the other place as to the ways in which it is very likely that this clause, if it is implemented, will not work. The AA and the RAC, as many noble Lords will be aware, are deeply against the implementation of Clause 51.
My principal reasons are that I do not think it is practicable. If one is causing a nuisance, somebody has to come along and remove the car. If we follow the route that my noble friend has suggested, and Westminster is the first place where an experimental area will be sited for the implementation of this clause, then I suggest that if you try to take a vehicle—and it may be a lorry or a small or a large car—from a place

435
where it is thought to be a danger or to be in the wrong place, and try to put it somewhere else within the Royal Borough of Westminster, I doubt whether anybody will in fact be able to find anywhere else to put it. Then one comes to where it should be put. Should it he taken to a pound or to somewhere outside the Borough of Westminster?—where the owner of the car would have a great deal of trouble in finding it.
I must lay the blame for this clause fairly and squarely on the Greater London Council. If it were not for the fact that they have not provided parking spaces, parking areas and garaging, however high they might be, for the traffic that they know is coming into this great city of ours, this clause would not be necessary. I feel very strongly about the citizens who in good faith bring a car into the City of London (I do not live here but in Buckinghamshire but I travel here every day) and are then fined and clamped. I think that this is taking away the rights not only of the citizen but of the motorist as well.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I make no apology for speaking at some length on this. I have listened, absolutely dumbfounded, to the most amazing emotional outbursts on the subject. I loved the golden words flowing from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He almost converts me until I stop and listen to what he is saying. He is really saying no more sense than anyone else is saying on this topic. I must take up a number of issues. Such a number of inaccurate statements have been made and alarmist issues raised. Let me take the bomb scare and the terrible fires—
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Will the noble Baroness support what we are all saying: that this is not a Government clause but a Greater London Council clause? The noble Baroness knows more about it than the Government.
A noble Lord: A member of the GLC!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I would not claim that but I claim to know as much about it as those who have been speaking at length. I know a little about the fire brigade system, for I have, until a short time ago, served on the Fire Brigade Committee for this capital. In the event of all these fires and bomb scares, the fire brigade are well equipped with keys to either special fire gates or other types of entry. I have no doubt that they would be equipped in the same way with a key to unlock this type of device if it was a problem.
I also know that where there is no other answer, the fire brigade manhandle vehicles out of any obstructing position. They could easily do so whether or not there was a clamp on the vehicle. They could simply lift the car up if the situation was that desperate. This is the kind of approach that is being made, sometimes it is dealt with by manhandling; sometimes it is by a mechanical device. The whole element of the bomb scare and the fire is a red herring.
To take the point made by the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches, he cannot have understood that clause at all. It was a clause about immobilising the vehicle where it stood or moving it. His total argument was directed to the matter of electronic locks and
436
whether or not the police could move a vehicle. We are not talking about moving vehicles except in a very small proportion of cases. In such cases they would be in a dangerously obstructive position and would otherwise be liable to be removed to the car pound.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: If you are not going to move a vehicle when it is in a place that might be dangerous or might be an obstruction, what on earth is the point of clamping it down in that place?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Apparently people have not followed this debate from the previous discussion that we had on it, because I explained all this on that occasion. I shall do so again if people have missed the point. The reason why I feel it essential to have the double part of the clause in—one which enabled you to immobilise the vehicle in the position that it was in; another to move it—is that there may be circumstances where it is wished to move it. At the present time, if a car has to be moved for any reason those same electronic lock problems occur whether the car has to be moved to the car pound or anywhere else. That situation is no different in either case. Indeed, you would be more pleased to find that your car had only been moved just around the corner rather than to a remote car pound. I have no doubt of that.
Lord Tanlaw: I am well aware that you can move the car to the car pound; but the police will be unable to move cars fitted with electronic locks. This is not the point I was making. The point that I was making was that there has been an apparent lack of liaison between the Metropolitan Police engineering division, the Metropolitan Police and the GLC on this technical matter which has not been raised by the Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am sorry but we seem to be at cross purposes. The cars now moved to the pound are not opened in order to move them; they are simply hoisted and taken on a large vehicle to the pound. They are not opened and driven there except in a very small number of cases where the police would happen to have a key. The vast majority of cars now are mechanically hoisted and taken away. But parked cars in certain positions are great offenders. It takes time and a lot of expense to bring the vehicle to take a car away.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Will the noble Baroness—
Several Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Macleod of Borve:—say how many cars are taken each year in Greater London?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: No, I am afraid that I cannot give those figures. I can tell the Committee from my experience sitting in court that the only people who are at all concerned about parking offences are those who have had the personal inconvenience of having had their vehicle removed or immobilised; and the immobilisation would work in the same way to great personal inconvenience.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that it has become such a game not to pay the fine at all and only

437
something like one quarter of the people ever pay at all; it has become a great sport to escape the £10 parking fine. But for even those who have to pay £10 today it is not much inconvenience. But the personal inconvenience of finding your car immobilised or gone is great, and you think twice before you park illegally again.
It is also clear from the debates, and the great emotions that have been aroused, that everyone is talking as if these people were honest, respectable people parking where they should be parking. I was pleased to hear the noble Earl say he would take back the matter of the parking meters. I think it would be wrong if on a parking meter you found your car immobilised. These other people that we are speaking about are illegal parkers. They are the people who are completely fouling up the traffic in London today—particularly in Central London. This is one solution that may solve the problem. I do not say that it will, and that is why it is to be an experiment.
Why is everyone so frightened of it? As someone said to me at dinner, "I am frightened of it because it might happen to my car". There are too many of us here tonight who are seeing the problem purely from that point of view: that you might happen to get your car caught. That just is not good enough.
The point was also made that the City of Westminster does not provide adequate off-street car parking. Again, nothing could be less accurate. There are ample off-street car parking spaces. They are disliked by people; people do not want to use them. Earlier in the afternoon the point was brought out: why could not the parking meter revenue go to pay to reduce London Transport costs? But by law it cannot be applied to anything except other parking matters, and it is for that reason that the multi-millions of pounds from parking meters have been poured into building multi-million-pound off-street car parks which, frankly, people do not like.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the doctors; these tragic doctors. If he makes inquiries, I think he will find that at present a doctor displaying a BMA badge or a "doctor visiting" sign, rarely gets a parking ticket. If they come up in the magistrates' court, they are usually let off. It is an extraordinary thing to get a ticket and if they do it is usually because they have changed their hospital and did not receive the notice, but eventually it has come. The BMA have an arrangement with the police and the wardens that certain badges may be displayed—for example, by visiting district nurses, health visitors and other people. There is also the question of car parking for an unexpected, sudden emergency, or there might be something as simple as somebody having to make a visit to a public convenience or perhaps in connection with the death that was talked about. People display a little notice on the windscreen, and on the whole the wardens and the police accept that.
I believe that a whole lot of completely false emotional issues have been brought up on this matter and that no real thought has been given to the fact that this would be an experiment which might prove to be the answer to parking problems in Central London. I agree that it may not solve everything and that it could prove to be a failure, but why are we frightened to try it? Why are we not willing, along with the Greater London Council
438
and the City of Westminster, to try this for a trial period? The Minister has said that it would be for a limited period and cover a limited area. Why are we frightened to try it? We should definitely agree that this clause remains in the Bill.
Viscount Cross: A number of your Lordships have spoken on the question of fire in London and, I should like to say a word or two on that subject. As your Lordships know, many London streets are narrow and they are certainly all congested. I think it would be very tragic if a fire engine was delayed or obstructed in reaching a fire. When a fire breaks out speed, of course, is absolutely essential, and if the fire engine has to stop to unclamp cars, its journey is delayed. No one can tell in which house, building or factory a fire may break out, and when the fire engine has reached the site of the fire it still might not be able to rescue the people in the building because there may be clamped cars that would have to be removed. A similar case can occur when people are trapped in a building with locked and bolted doors, so that they cannot get out. In such a case, the fire engine might be prevented from rescuing the people in the building because of locked and clamped cars. I think that Clause 51 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Baroness spoke, if I may say so, with great sincerity, and in spite of the fact that part of her speech was directed at me, I assure her that I accepted it with great relish. She mentioned fire engines and said that she was a member of the Fire Brigade Committee of the Metropolis. I am sure, therefore, that she will not mind my telling her that I was chairman of that committee for just over five years and thus can claim, as she does, to know a little about the Fire Brigade, for which, I am sure, both of us have a great admiration. I can only tell her that, as chairman of that committee for over five years, any question of having to waste even one minute—and it would be longer than that—in trying to unlock a car that had been clamped in this way, from the point of view of the fire brigade would be a great disadvantage. Unlike the noble Baroness, I have used moderate language in saying, "a great disadvantage".
9.25 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I do not like Clause 51 and started with the firm view that I would oppose it. I feel that it is designed to clobber the foreigners, who have no intention of paying their parking fines. They collect parking tickets by the thousand, but never pay them. But in order to clobber the foreigners, we end up by clobbering all the "Brits" instead. I believe that the point about the fire engine is misjudged. It makes no difference whether vehicles are clamped, unclamped or locked up. They can be easily moved out of the way in an emergency. If there is this clamping system, there will probably be so much discouragement of had parking that it may be better for the proverbial fire engine. Finally, if this is to be an experiment, then, in principle, it is a good thing. There are so many laws introduced for the whole country and we all have to experiment with a new law. But if we can establish the principle of experimenting with a new law, in a small area to start with, and see how it works, then I am all for it.
Lord Mottistone: I should just like to add, briefly, that there is much too much that has been claimed for the clamp in clearing the streets, and much too much has been claimed for its disadvantages. I see it as not being something that we should have in this clause, because it is clear to me from the earlier debates that the Government have not had time to think it out and, therefore, the clause itself is being accelerated too fast. It is something which the Government should think about and introduce in later legislation. We have had a Transport Bill pretty well once a year for the last three years, so there will be one coming along and the Government can catch up.
But, above all, I am desperately concerned about the relationship between the public and the police. I did not like the seat belt legislation, because the law cannot be applied fairly. You will find yourself in a street with a clamp on your motor car. I shall have a car in the same street, but will get away with it because the police have only one clamp to spare, which they will put on your car and not on mine. That is not fair, because we shall both be on yellow lines. The answer is that it will not do enough to clear the streets, because it will leave cars lying about where they otherwise would not have been, but it will create increased "aggro" between the ordinary people and the police. We have far too many of these things happening now, and I implore the Government to recognise that their clause is not perfect, to wait for it and to try it out in a provincial city. But I ask them not to make relationships worse between the Metropolitan Police and the citizens of London. I ask them not to try to do something just for the sake of it, without thinking about the human relationships which will be destroyed by this and other similar practices.
Baroness Denington: The Government have had plenty of time to think about it. To my knowledge, it has been pressed on the Government for the last 10 years and, at last, they have screwed up their courage to bring it forward, because they know that some measures, however unpopular, have to be taken to try to deal with the London situation. My noble friend Lord Mishcon, for whom I have great respect—I have known him for many years—says "Do not vote for it. It is an intrusion into people's rights". Whose rights? I am glad if it is an intrusion into the rights of those who defy the traffic regulations, leave their cars in the wrong places and do not care how long they are left or what obstruction they cause. They are not citizens whom we in this House should be supporting. We should not be telling them that we are not concerned about their conduct, and giving them a green light to go on doing it. That is not our responsibility in this House. Our responsibility here is to face up to a serious situation. We are talking now about London. We are not talking about other cities in this country. For one year we want to try this experiment in a few limited areas in our capital city. To take the case of Soho, its little, narrow streets are jammed up. It is no good talking about fire brigades, doctors, nurses and everybody else because they just cannot get down those little, narrow streets. Something has got to be done to allow the fire brigades, the doctors, the nurses and the other essential services to get down those streets. Those are the problems we are really talking about.
440
There was some feeling against the authority, the GLC, for not having done something to cure the traffic problems of London. Wardens were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The Government have never allowed enough money to be spent on wardens. The authorities cannot recruit wardens because the pay is so appalling. If noble Lords, or the country, or anybody else want more wardens, let us see that more wardens can be recruited because they are properly remunerated.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, talked also about undergound car parks. I agree with him. I wish we had many more underground car parks. As he has told me only this evening, there are plenty of places where they could be provided. But who is to provide them? The local authorities cannot provide them because of the cost. We in this Chamber all know that local authority monies are very closely controlled by the Government. It costs millions to build one underground car park which houses a few hundred cars. What is really wanted are underground car parks all over the place to house thousands and thousands of cars. Then we should be in a very different situation.
I have said repeatedly to your Lordships that this is an old city with an old pattern of streets which we cannot and do not wish to destroy and that we have modern traffic flows trying to get through them. I pay tribute to those who devise traffic management schemes and to the police who keep London's traffic moving—but only just. It is a very narrow margin. All we are doing is asking for a one year experiment, with the Secretary of State agreeing which areas it is to be in. It is a very limited, small effort to try to cure an enormous problem that we have not managed to cure in any other way up to the present time.
I would end by saying that the decision which we take here will be a very important one for this capital city of ours. We are taking a small step to try to improve the commercial health of this city of ours. As your Lordships know, the on-cost on commerce and industry of delays—by badly parked cars, very often—is simply enormous. I beg your Lordships not to be swayed by emotion. I beg your Lordships to take this vote. I wish there were so many more of us here to take a very important decision for this capital city of our country.
Lord Airedale: Everybody is having their say in this debate. I shall try to be not more than 45 seconds. If you said to an intelligent, small child, "If you came across a car which was parked where it was not allowed to be parked, what would be the right thing to do?" the child would say, "Move it away If the police are going to come and fix it in its illegal position and go away, and if, five minutes later, the owner is going to return and attempt to remove his car from this illegal spot and is unable to do so, the intelligent child will tell you that you have now achieved a situation which is the exact opposite of that which you were trying to achieve, and Parliament really ought to be able to do better than that.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps it would be a good moment for me to say my piece. I hope the Committee will

441
allow me to speak a little longer than I might otherwise have done because I have during the debate on this clause stuck to the amendments and have not actually taken a broader brush. My noble friend started by listing what he feels to be the disadvantages of this clause. What I should like to do, supported by the two noble Baronesses, is to list what I see as the potential advantages. These have yet to be proved by the experimental and limited trial which the clause will allow, but we believe that the case is substantial. I know the whole Committee will agree with me that the problem of illegal parking in London is real and urgent. To underline that, we have had debates in this House on London congestion specifically, and during those debates one of the solutions put forward was the wheel clamp. This was a solution which we realised would not make the problem go away but would be another step forward in solving the problems of London parking. It is certainly regarded as such by the traffic regulation authorities and the GLC. In fact the case for wheel clamps was supported quite as urgently by the Conservative GLC Administration as it has been by their successors. I suspect it is the only transport issue on which there is a real bipartisan approach at County Hall.
The primary reason why this clause is being put to the Committee is that the case for it has been strongly and persistently put to the Government by the Metropolitan Police. The immobilisation clause will give the police new powers for use in areas where they are most under pressure. It provides a cost-effective means of enforcement which is very much less labour intensive than vehicle removal. That is one reason why this clause has the enthusiastic support of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It makes sense in terms of the hard-pressed police force, which has many other things to do than pursue the hundreds of thousands of parking offences which are committed daily in Central London.
One indication of the extent to which police time is wasted by illegal parking is the fact that only one fixed penalty in ten is paid on time. This failure of the motorist to co-operate imposes extra work on the police. It is not surprising that in these circumstances the police are pressing for an additional means of enforcement which would take direct effect on the person who is the driver of the illegally-parked car.
The police believe that wheel clamps will prove an acceptable and effective addition to their enforcement options. The police do not believe that wheel clamps will damage their relations with the motoring public; much has been made of this today, backed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in an earlier amendment. I believe that any bad feeling must be more than counter-balanced by the deterrent effect of seeing that the police are doing something. I understand that, when the consultation papers went out, a lot more letters said what a good thing it was that parking was being treated in this way, and there were very few letters against the wheel clamps. Having consulted widely, they have found great concern about illegal parking and support for a new remedy. It is also right that for a period these devices should be on trial, so that the claims which are made both for and against them should be fully assessed in practice before there is any question of making them permanent
442
or extending them to other areas where they may be needed and requested.
The second leg of the case for wheel clamps is that they are likely to be effective in a number of respects in which the fixed penalty system is inherently weak. The improvements to the fixed penalty system in this Bill will substantially strengthen the enforcement of unpaid fixed penalties; but it will not be effective for vehicles registered abroad or driven by diplomats, and the effectiveness of the fixed penalty system as a deterrent will always be limited where many offences are committed by drivers who simply absorb the cost as a business expense. The wheel clamp promises to be an effective enforcement aid in areas where there is a persistent problem of illegal parking by foreign visitors. Fixed penalties cannot be enforced against people resident abroad or using a foreign-registered vehicle.
Looking beyond the initial experiment in the Metropolitan Police district, I suspect that, if these powers are requested elsewhere, it will probably be in areas where illegal parking by foreigners has proved uncontrollable. The problem of persistent illegal parking by diplomats is largely confined to central London. These offences are also immune to fixed penalties. It will be open to the police to clamp vehicles with diplomatic registrations. Depending on the circumstances, a diplomat may be able to claim immunity from the charge for removing clamps. But, as with towing away, he will have been seriously inconvenienced and this is the deterrent.
Finally, there is the problem of the business motorist. Some people feel that illegal parking is an unavoidable part of their job. One does not envy those who have to use their cars on business in Central London, but they may themselves under-estimate the extent to which they are, or should be, helped by parking regulations. It cannot help those who need to make calls at different premises during the course of the day when parking meters and single yellow lines are widely abused. Improved enforcement would itself improve conditions for the business motorist, and my right honourable friend has also asked the GLC and the boroughs to see what additional meters and short-term parking spaces can be provided.
But the business cannot expect to benefit from the advantages of better enforcement unless they recognise that they too must take some trouble to abide by the rules; to pay for parking off-street rather than try to park freely on-street, to be content to park legally a little distance from the premises to be visited, to load and unload only as the regulations permit. Because wheel clamps will cost offenders time and inconvenience as well as money, they deprive illegal parkers of exactly those gains which they seek to achieve at the expense of law abiding road users.
Other noble Lords have spoken of the need to deter illegal parking, particularly in London. The Committee will be aware of the problems of bus services, which on some routes are so seriously affected that 15 per cent. of scheduled milage cannot be run, costs are increased, and the service is disrupted and diverted to the inconvenience and delay of passengers. Illegal parking can inconvience and disturb pedestrians; it can impede cyclists. It slows down traffic at a

443
resource cost possibly of hundreds of millions of pounds.
There were one or two specific comments on which I should like to make some observations. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned the emergency services, as did my noble friend Lord Cross. An answer was given by my noble friend Lady Gardner and a counter-riposte from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. There is already a threat to the access of services because of illegal parking which is on such an enormous scale. The police will always take care not to immobilise vehicles so that street or fire access is disrupted. People who park illegally do not always take such care, and deaths have been caused by illegal parking delaying fire engines.
I think I should remind your Lordships that the clause gives exactly the same discretion as the removal powers do at the moment. Any illegally parked vehicle may be removed. Finally, on vehicle removal, I should like to confirm that some cars are hoisted, some towed and some driven, and some cannot be removed. For those which cannot be removed, wheel clamps will provide one of the many ways of dealing with this offence. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, suggested that in some way a Rolls-Royce might be exempt. Personally, I do not see why they should not put a wheel clamp on a Rolls-Royce parked outside one of those big hotels; I would rather like to do so.
We are not offering wheel clamps as a panacea. They are not magic, and other measures, such as the towing away of vehicles causing serious obstruction, will still have to be used. In appraising their results, we shall have to be realistic about the difficulties of measuring their effect and reaching a balanced view of the public response to them. But if the clause is rejected, their effectiveness will never be assessed, and we shall be forgoing a chance of improving traffic conditions; we should be backing away from the problem. I undertake between now and Report to look carefully at all the comments made today on the details of the scheme, but I hope sincerely that the Committee will pass the clause so that we can undertake this imaginative idea. I commend the clause.
9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 51, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53, Not-Contents, 22.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Glanusk, L.

Auckland, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Avon, E.

Harvington, L.

Bellwin, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Bishopston, L.

Kilmany, L.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Moyne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

David, B.

Peart, L.

Davidson, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

De Freyne, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Denington, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Donegall, M.

Segal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Simon, V.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Trumpington, B.

Faithfull, B.

Underhill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gainford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Wynford, L.

Gisborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Mishcon, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cross, V.

Seear, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Fortescue, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Greenway, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 51, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw Lord Tanlaw moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause:
("Bikeways.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by construction or by regulations create permanent or temporary bikeways designated for use only by the following categories of vehicles—

(a) mopeds (up to 49 cc) and bicycles; and

(b) powered invalid carriages and electrically-powered and pedal-operated tricycles.

(2) All vehicles in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) shall conform to the regulations contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, the Transport Act 1968 and the Road Traffic Act 1979.
(3) The following speed limits will apply to vehicles designated in subsection (1) making use of any road or part of a road designated by the Secretary of State as a bikeway—

(a) vehicles covered by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) may not exceed 30 miles per hour; and

(b) vehicles covered by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) may not exceed 10 miles per hour.").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee and with the agreement of the noble Earl, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 122, which is obviously connected. If the noble Lord agrees that I can speak on Amendment No. 122 at the same time—which is the descriptive amendment on what is a "bikeway "—it may be helpful if I speak to that first.
It may seem rather odd that I use the term "bikeway" rather than "cycleway" or "cycle path" for this particular amendment, but I did so with some reason: perhaps partly with my tongue in my cheek, because the noble Earl will recall that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment told us to get on our bikes, and not on our cycles. I think that it may be in response to his exhortation for the bike that this amendment has come forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Reginald Eyre, on 1st July attended London's first bicycle crossing at the Albert Gate, when he said that:
"Cyclists are particularly vulnerable to traffic and this has been particularly evident this week"—
this week being the week of 28th June—
"when many people have been taking to bicycles in an effort to beat the rail and tube strikes. Motorists should always give cyclists space to manoeuvre and this applies as much in heavily congested conditions as when they are overtaken on the open road".
On 28th June—the day in question—600,000 to 750,000 vehicles came into London. How many of those vehicles would have remained in the garage if there were safe and adequate bikeways on which to cycle into London and into work anything up to 20 miles? When I bicycled into the City that day I was amazed at the distances that fellow cyclists had come. Some had come 20 miles and some even further.
Everything was done to encourage the vehicle—the car—to come to London. Hyde Park was open and the double yellow lines and parking meters were suspended. Everything was done to encourage the car. I think that there should be some method to encourage people to use the bike more often.
In the transport policy consultation document 1976 the Government of the day accepted that pedal cycles are cheap personal transport. Unlike motor-bikes they do not cause pollution, and so on. I feel that there are not the adequate facilities to use a bicycle safely in our cities. This is what is so depressing. Urban cycling is no longer a healthy activity. It can seriously damage your health, indeed shorten your life. The present statistics produced by the BMA say that the Government should stop their delaying tactics and provide cycle paths because accidents to cyclists were up 6 per cent. in the third quarter of last year compared with the year before, and deaths up 10 per cent.
What is sad is that it is the 10 to l4-year-olds who experience seven times as many cyclist casualties as those over 30. It is this factor perhaps more than any other which has induced me to put the amendment before the Committee. It is perhaps not in the best form of drafting but it emphasises things that are missing in the law and in a Bill of this kind today. The highest number of accidents are among cyclists and the younger age groups. I have not got the statistics but I suspect that they are the same kind of statistics for the small mopeds which are often the first vehicle a young boy or girl is given, or some elderly people use, in what I believe is the mistaken belief that they are safer than a more powerful machine.
I have also taken care that powered invalid carriages and electrically operated pedal cycles are included. These are the vulnerable areas of traffic. As in these days when traffic increases to incredible proportions, so the cities burst at the seams with the kind of transport disruption which we have at this time. Where is the protection for the most vulnerable of all travellers? It is not apparent at the moment. I have brought it up in this Bill because this is a Government matter in terms of definition; in definition of the type of vehicle and type of bikeway, cycle path, carriageway, call it what you like. It is not clearly defined in the statute book at this moment.
I would refer the noble Earl to the Local Government Act 1888 which states:
"bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Acts".
This may not sound important, but it means that since 1888 the bicycle is treated as a carriage in law, and it has to adhere to all the laws for all other types of vehicles. These laws for vehicles place strict controls on their use in an attempt to make an efficient use of road space. I should like the noble Earl to look at this and see whether or not there are better legal procedures available to make improved provisions for the bicyclist and for better definitions of a bicycle and tricycle in terms of the law, because it is clearly wrong to classify a bicycle or a tricycle as a motor vehicle, or to give it the same rights.
Could the noble Earl also look at the difference between footpaths and footways? In urban areas there are many footpaths dedicated by the highway authority which in doing so takes on certain responsibilities for the care of the footpath. Bicycles are allowed to run along footpaths, but the difference is that they are not allowed to run along footways. Under the Highway Act 1835 it is an offence to ride or

447
drive a bicycle along a footway which does not run alongside a road. However, local authorities have the power to make by-laws or local traffic orders to make it an offence in particular places for vehicles to go, except bicycles. Alternatively, "No cycling" signs would be put up to conform to these ancient laws.
What I am asking the Government to do—and this is the Bill in which to do it—is to bring the bicyclist up to date. I have quoted two laws from the last century which are clearly "anti-cyclist", in the sense that they are no longer to their benefit. Whether it is called a bikeway, a cycleway or whatever, I am asking the Government to give the cyclist a better chance in an urban situation in an overcrowded city. I also think the Secretary of State should have an opportunity to create, if he so wishes, temporary bikeways in the middle of a great city like London.
In the last debate there were many references to narrow, winding, historic streets, or words to that effect, which were jam-packed with cars. Many of these streets are not suitable for the motor vehicle, coach or heavy lorry. Why cannot they, in times of transport difficulty like we are experiencing now, be made into temporary bikeways for use by mopeds up to 49 cc, powered invalid carriages and bicyclists, so there would be one route going across London from east to west and one from north to south? That would at least allow people to go unmolested and unterrified along those routes and possibly get near their places of work. In other words, let us encourage people to take their bicycles out and leave their cars in the garage.
What I propose is not an earth-shattering amendment. I want to know why the Government have ignored the bicyclist and cycleway in all their efforts to improve car parking, to hammer the motorist and worry about the congestion in our great cities. Why do they not do something positive to encourage cycling, by people of all ages, by providing facilities which are suitable for the purpose? I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: I must first declare an interest by saying that I never go anywhere in London other than on my bicycle, and I only hope it has not been "nicked" so I can go home on it tonight. The bicycle is an enormous space-saver and is extremely quick on which to get around; one can get to the City in 10 minutes and not face a parking problem, and so on. There is, however, the problem of such places as Hyde Park Corner, which is difficult to get round although it is an extremely sporting exercise trying to get round it. I would ask one question of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in relation to his excellent amendment. I am not quite clear how he intends to check bicyclists' speeds. Does he intend to have policeman mounted on bicycles with blue flashing beacons checking them at 10 pph!
Lord Airedale: I am thankful that my noble friend had his tongue in his cheek in seeking to put on to the statute book the hideous slang term "bike". A bike has to be a bicycle, and whether or not the Ancient Greeks had bicycles, a bicycle must be a two-wheeled
448
vehicle. My noble friend says in subsection (1)(b) that it would include tricycles, but there is no way that tricycles could be included in a provision to create bikeways.
Lord Underhill: I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has tabled this amendment. It may be that the criticism of the word "bikeways" is valid, but I can see what the noble Lord is trying to achieve; he is trying to go beyond what we used to call cycle paths. I can no longer declare an interest; I could have done many years ago, when I was a cycle club captain. In those days, I cycled 10 miles each way to West-minister. Frankly, I would think twice about doing it today, not because of my age but because there are now 13 to 14 million cars on the roads compared with about ¾ million when I used to cycle. Unless there is some provision of special bikeways, it is dangerous for people to journey by cycle.
Towns like Peterborough have conducted some excellent experiments, about which we have read, and if the amendment results in the Government giving more encouragement to such schemes, that would be most useful.
In addition, there is the problem of providing proper cycle paths, bikeways (call them what you will), in the country. Noble Lords who have been to Holland will have seen the cycle paths which cut across the country, and, in the towns, run alongside the roads. That is the way to handle the matter. Whenever there are new road developments or road repairs in this country, thought should be given to providing a cycle path or bikeway alongside. But a problem would arise, because the noble Lord wants to cater for not only bicycles and tricycles, but also invalid carriages. The problem of using an invalid carriage on an ordinary main road must be fairly frightening, and unless a bikeway were sufficiently wide, there would be difficulty in accommodating at the same time an invalid carriage and two or three cycles.
The other problem to be considered concerns the varying speed limits. The limits could be only a guide. I cannot see any possibility of enforcing them. However, I consider that the noble Lord has done the Committee a service in bringing forward the amendment. It might not finish up in this form, but I hope that the Government have some practical ideas to bring forward.
10.6 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: It is obvious from the appearance of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough that cycling keeps one trim. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for bringing forward the amendment and for drawing attention to the recently-opened cycle route near the Albert Gate. The Government fully recognise the dangers faced by vulnerable vehicles, such as bicycles or mopeds, and invalid carriages, in mixed traffic. There is a case for segregation when it can be achieved, and highway authorities have powers to introduce segregated facilities for cyclists. There is nothing to prevent these being shared by the other categories of vehicle mentioned in the amendment, though that would usually be a matter for local decision.

449
The powers under which highway authorities, including the Secretary of State, may construct cycle tracks, both within the boundaries of existing highways, or as highways in their own right, are in Sections 24 and 65 of the Highways Act 1980. They may use traffic regulation orders to exclude motor vehicles from such highways.
The Department of Transport has consulted on a proposal to make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle on a cycle track. It would avoid the need for separate traffic regulation orders in every case. It is not always desirable to mix cycles and mopeds, and decisions on this would be left as far as possible to local discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned the 1888 Act. It is open to local authorities to treat bicycles differently from motor vehicles in their traffic orders. The department is committed to improving its advice to local authorities, including better information on the law. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and in fact your Lordships' Committee, might like to know that my right honourable friend is very much aware of the growing interest in cycling, and he is keen to encourage local authorities to respond by providing improved facilities. He has invited them to include proposals in their transport policies and programmes, and he has announced an expanded programme of experimental and innovatory projects to demonstrate what can be achieved. He has also appointed a senior engineer to look after the interests of cyclists in each of the department's regional offices.
I hope that in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will accept that we very much have at heart the interests of cyclists. I hope he will also accept that his amendment would at the moment add very little to the powers already available to provide segregated facilities. I trust that, judging from what I have said, he will agree that we are going on the right track.
Lord Tanlaw: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response to the amendment, and I was pleased to hear about the activity that is taking place in looking at how bikeways, cycle paths, cycle tracks, can be created by local authorities. I hope that while there is enthusiasm towards the creation of bikeways (as I like to call them) information will be given to local authorities to enable them to make decisions. There are worrying factors about the category of vehicle and the category of path, on which the local authorities might like help from the Department of Transport, and I hope that that will be forthcoming.
The noble Lord opposite asked about bike speeds. I can tell him that a friend of mine has been taken to court for speeding at over 30 miles an hour on a bicycle in a built-up area. So obviously the police have methods of catching people cycling at such speeds. The other reason why I mentioned speed limits was that this is a part of the transport department's regulations that I look forward to seeing about electrically-powered tricycles and invalid carriages. The position is still not clear on these. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his interest, and I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Alteration of procedure governing the Highway Code]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 63, line 7, leave out from first ("on") to ("he") in line 9 and insert ("the passing, amendment or repeal of any statutory provision").
The noble Lord said: The intention in putting down this amendment is to ensure that Clause 53 is not open to misinterpretation. The purpose of this power is partly to provide a more efficient means of reviewing the Highway Code—we still allow changes to be fully debated—and partly to ensure that changes in statute law can be reflected in the Code at an early opportunity, rather than, as at present, waiting until it is practicable to undertake a full-scale revision. I am sure your Lordships will agree that where Parliament has recently enacted, having naturally debated, a piece of road safety legislation, the Code should be amended to reflect it as soon as possible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 64, line 5, at end insert ("(and the reference to the passing or repeal of any such provision accordingly includes the making or revocation of any such provision)").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denham: After consultation through the usual channels, I think it is generally agreed that it would be the wish of the Committee not to go much further tonight, after the long sitting last night. For the information of the Committee perhaps I may say that it is intended to put down the remainder of this Committee stage tomorrow afternoon, and we will finish it then.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.