Lords Sitting of 15 December 1988

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely.): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

European Air Traffic Control
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on air matters discussed at the meeting of the European Community Transport Ministers' Council held on 8th–9th December with particular reference to proposals tabled by the Commission on air traffic control and its amendment to the 1983 directive on the Inter-regional Air Services Agreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, there was some discussion of air traffic control issues but the Commission did not, in the event, table its proposals. Inter-regional air services were not on the agenda and were not discussed.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, replies to Questions dealing with the Commission and air services appear to be getting worse and more disappointing. Even the Minister had hoped that the Inter-regional Air Services Agreement would be discussed. Can he tell the House what has happened to the previous interest shown by the Commission in air matters? As regards the reply to today's Question, can we be informed about the discussion which took place in respect of the air traffic control? Does it mean that in the future this area will be controlled mainly by Eurocontrol and the ECAC, with the Commission in the background, so that all European states can be included?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that the proposals in respect of the Inter-regional Air Services Agreement are still under consideration at official level.
The subject of air traffic control was discussed. Those discussions centred on whether a Community-wide approach was appropriate for dealing with air congestion. It was agreed that such an approach should not duplicate the work of other bodies such as ECAC and Eurocontrol.
I remain to be convinced that Commission involvement is necessary. It would be better for ICAO and Eurocontrol to remain in the lead. The problem of congestion extends well beyond the 12 EC member states. We are awaiting from the Commission the proposals for the second stage of liberalisation and we expect to receive them next November. I believe that the Commission's priority should lie in developing those proposals rather than possibly duplicating scarce resources by copying what Eurocontrol ought to be doing.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we have congratulated the Minister on his efforts to establish and develop Eurocontrol. Is he aware of the serious statement reported on the radio this morning in respect of the report of the Air Transport Users' Committee which is not yet in our Printed Paper Office but which we await with interest? It expresses serious concern about the problems not only of airport congestion but also of air space congestion. Are we not in grave danger of confusing liberalisation with deregulation and the problems that that would bring forward? Is there a lack of urgency in other countries to follow Eurocontrol which the Minister is trying to encourage?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have heard of the Air Transport Users' Committee report but I have not yet received my copy. However, I saw members of the committee yesterday evening. We share some of their concerns about the present air traffic control situation. During previous Question Times I have given detailed information about what is happening.
We believe that liberalisation should go ahead. We do not believe that the strict regulation now in place is the best way to deal with the situation. Any problems with air traffic control must be dealt with, but that does not mean to say that liberalisation should not go ahead.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am glad about the prominence being given to the report of the AUC, but I should like to ask the Minister about an issue which concerns him. Has any date been fixed for a future meeting of the Council of Ministers in Europe? Can he also help me about a matter which 1 can never sort out? At their meetings can the transport Ministers raise matters concerning aviation in general? Or can they do so only if the Commission is kind enough to place an item on the agenda?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the dates proposed for the new Spanish presidency provide that there will be an informal council on 13th February and formal councils on 14th March and 5th June, 1989.
Ministers can press the presidency for items to be discussed at council meetings when the agenda is being drawn, but there is no obligation on the presidency to agree. Ministers can make a statement at council meetings under "any other business", normally giving the presidency advance notice as a matter of courtesy. However, such statements are not usually discussed.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can one then take it that the Council of Ministers asked the Commission to discussion the Inter-regional Air Services Agreement at its last meeting, or was the matter not raised beforehand?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there are still a number of oustanding issues in respect of the Interregional Air Services Agreement. In general they concern the extent of liberalisation appropriate on

1021
inter-regional routes at this stage in the 1992 process. There is also a need for us to resolve bilaterally with Spain the conditions under which the amendments should apply to Gibraltar. It appears that the proposals are not yet sufficiently advanced to be tabled by the Commission.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I gather that the short answer is, no.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the considerable delays experienced by those who constantly use Heathrow Airport? What will the Minister do about the flying teams of reindeer which may descend on him at this time of year?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, although the question strays well away from that on the Order Paper, I hope that there will be no problems in respect of my noble friend's latter point.

Gibraltar Airport
3.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now the position with respect to the proposal of Spanish participation in the operation of Gibraltar Airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the joint declaration of 2nd December 1987, which provided for co-operation over the use of Gibraltar Airport, will not come into force until the Gibraltar House of Assembly amends Gibraltar's existing customs and immigration legislation. The Spanish Government then have up to one year to build a new terminal before new arrangements come into force. We believe it is very much in Gibraltar's interests to implement the joint declaration, but have made clear that we shall not attempt to force them to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting Answer. Is she aware of the fact that many people believe that the prolonged difficulties which have arisen owe a good deal to the action of Her Majesty's Government in not associating the Government of Gibraltar in the negotiations with Spain but presenting them with a fait accompli? Will the Government try to do better next time?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the British Government have kept the matter constantly under review with the relevant people in Gibraltar. Meetings have recently taken place and there will be further discussions.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that her Answer means that the situation remains the same as that outlined in the Written Answer given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on 11th April 1988? He stated that
1022
Gibraltar will remain excluded from the air transport liberalisation measures adopted by the European Community on 14th December 1987, until they reach an agreement. Does that remain the position?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, does that not therefore mean that the Gibraltar Government are failing to implement the Government's policy of becoming more self-supporting by passing over the benefits which would accrue to them from that arrangement?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are hoping that by encouraging the Gibraltar Government to consider this in addition to other benefits which we believe the agreement will bring to the people of Gibraltar, they will see their way to joining in.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when this matter was last raised in the House it was confirmed by the noble Baroness that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar was to have discussions with her right honourable and learned friend last October. Can she say whether those talks took place, whether this subject was raised and what were the reactions of the Chief Minister to the proposals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the meeting did take place and this topic arose. Other meetings have taken place and further meetings are due to take place on a regular basis to discuss general matters. I am not at liberty to give details of the discussions which took place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that the Government of Gibraltar in the person of the Chief Minister are objecting to this proposal and are making it difficult for it to go through? Does she not agree that it is unlikely that the Assembly will ratify the agreement unless the Government and the Chief Minister are in favour of it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that we can all understand some of the anxieties of the people of Gibraltar but we are trying to convince them of the benefit that this agreement can bring to them while making it absolutely clear that there have been no concessions on sovereignty and that the airport will remain under British control. We hope and trust that they will come round.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend take a little further her original Answer to me and indicate that in the event of future negotiations with Spain, which may well be necessary, the Government of Gibraltar will be associated with them at the time and will not simply be given the results afterwards on a take it or leave it basis?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I hesitated in responding to my noble friend's first supplementary question. I believe that a representative of Gibraltar was present during the previous discussions and I see no reason why that should not continue.

Family Credit and Child Benefit
3.12 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the increase in family credit announced in the Autumn Statement will adequately compensate families on low pay for the lack of an increase in child benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): Yes, my Lords. An RPI uprating of child benefit would have meant an extra 45p per child. Instead, as I explained to the House on Tuesday, we have more than compensated for the standstill in child benefit by increasing family credit by an extra 95p per child over and above the uprating for prices.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. On Tuesday he made quite clear that the take-up of family credit was not as high as the Government would like it to be. Does he not agree that as well as improving the form, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, clearly pointed out was poorly drafted, there is also a need to overcome the concept that while child benefit is paid to the mother for the children in all families, with no discrimination, family credit tends to put a stigma on the poor and is really only a subsidy to employers for paying low wages?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. I do not agree that family credit is a stigma on the poor and a subsidy for employers paying low wages. There are and always have been low paid jobs in the economy and it is right that the state should encourage employment in those areas by paying extra state benefits.
As regards take-up, as I said on Tuesday, that is increasing. Indeed, successful claims for November exceed those for April and May put together. We believe that the underlying caseload is now approaching 300,000, which indicates a take-up rate considerably above some figures which are being floated about.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the plight of the very poor families should be the centre of attention of any compassionate, civilised government and that there seems to be a stigma involved in the Government's proposals? Is he not aware that many experts in our universities and those who have made a close study of the social services are somewhat concerned at the Government's proposals? Is it not possible for the Government to examine those concerns and then examine their own proposals?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are statutorily bound to examine the levels once a year in connection with the uprating statement, as noble Lords will be well aware. Next April's uprating will target help to those most in need. The majority of any child benefit uprating will go to better off families, including the wealthiest. Among families who stand to gain from
1024
an increase in child benefit, 70 per cent. goes to those with above average earnings.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Lord put a percentage figure on the take-up of family credit, and in so far as there is a shortfall can he say what steps the Government are taking to remedy that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is currently a Better Off In Work campaign being conducted through the Department of Employment, and a major exercise began at the end of last month which will run until Christmas boosted by advertising on local radio and taking other local initiatives. Everyone who collects child benefit from the post office will receive a leaflet about family credit.
For the future, we plan to have a further major advertising campaign including advertisements on television around the time of the next uprating. We shall continue to publicise family credit and especially we shall make clear the levels of income at which it can be paid. As regards the current position, the amount of money being paid out in child benefit is currently very close to the estimate we made some 18 months ago.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it not true that family credit is paid to the man, whereas an enormous advantage of child benefit is that it is the woman who receives it? Unless she receives it, quite a lot of the money will never go to help the children.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, families can elect who receives the family credit and I am advised that in most cases it goes direct to the mother, as does child benefit.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is in the cases where it most needs to go to the mother that it is elected that it should go to the father?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is absolutely no evidence at all for that statement.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that increases in family credit, income support and housing benefit add up to extra expenditure of £70 million? The failure to increase child benefit produced a saving of £203 million. Can he explain why only one-third of the savings from the failure to increase child benefit was directed to the poorest families?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The net annual saving from not uprating child benefit will be around £200 million, but we are making available an extra £70 million to the neediest families over and above the £135 million which the normal uprating of income related child benefit allowances will cost.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the statement he made that there will always be low wages is reminiscent of the phrase that the poor

1025
will always be with us? Can I take it that the tacit approval which he gave to the continuation of low wages is government policy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. It was a recognition of need.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, as it seems that the Government are saving £203 million through their treatment of child benefit but have allocated only just over £70 million to uprate the new benefits, and as only about one-third of the families entitled to family credit are receiving it due to the Government's poor marksmanship and targeting, can the Minister tell the House what is happening to the cash balance which the Government are saving by these new arrangements? Surely that money belongs to the children of this country. What is he doing with it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the children of this country, especially the poorer children, are benefiting to a considerable degree, as I have made clear in previous answers. As regards the social security budget, that will increase by £2 billion in the next financial year.

Building Industry: Training
3.20 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their future plans for the training of skilled operatives in the building industry.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government have always believed that the primary responsibility for training skilled operatives in the building industry rests with employers. The Government will continue to provide support for training through their youth and adult training programmes and by establishing the right framework at local industry and national levels to produce a more flexible, adaptable and highly skilled workforce.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply but is the Minister aware that, following the issue of the recent Government White Paper on training, views have been forcefully expressed by some of the major builders and the major trade union in the building industry, UCATT, that the present arrangements ought to be continued? They have served the industry well. If there is any desire to consider a change I ask the Minister to give an undertaking that there will be full consultation with everyone concerned in the building industry in order to arrive at the right conclusions.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is the firm intention of Ministers to have a meeting with the chairman of the board shortly after Christmas. The purpose of that meeting will be to invite the chairman to draw up plans, including a timetable, for moving his board away from its reliance on a statutory levy and becoming an independent non-statutory body.
1026
That, of course, is one of the government policies referred to in the recent White Paper.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Federation of Building Trade Employers always had, I think—in fact, most people think—one of the finest training schemes possible? Can the Minister assure me that it will not be interfered with in any way and, in fact, will be improved upon?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the objective of any government policy in this or any other area is to improve on the training situation in any particular industry. I am confident that the discussions will result in an improvement in skill training in the construction industry.
Lord Morris: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what "an operative" means?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, without a dictionary in front of me I suggest it probably means one who operates.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the accident rate in the construction industry is still unacceptably high? Last year more than 17 additional deaths occurred. Does not the Minister agree that that is probably attributable to the use of unskilled and untrained lump labour in the industry? Will the Minister be good enough to tell the House what arrangements are being made for safety training in the industry and for an improvement in the safety inspectorate?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness is right. There is absolutely no reason to be complacent about the number of accidents in the building industry. The care taken within the youth training scheme to train in accident avoidance has been increased substantially in the past year or so. I have no information on the other point raised by the noble Baroness and will have to write to her.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the trade unions are of the opinion that a concerted assault on the growing shortage of housing in Great Britain would resolve the problem? That would assist the employers and the trade unions to carry out many of the schemes that they have in mind but have not yet been able to carry out because they are not receiving the orders necessary, particularly in regard to providing more homes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am confused by that question. At present the construction industry is booming and has been for some considerable time. This Question refers particularly to skill shortages in the building industry. Any arrangements for the future provision of training will have to take the noble Lord's point into account.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to look at the possibility of increasing the number of inspectors in view of the present accident rate in the industry?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly pass that point on to my right honourable friend.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under directives of the EC due to come into force in 1990 there may be a massive penetration in our building industry by our partners in the EC? If that takes place will the Government ensure that it does not happen at the expense of training our own young people in skills in the industry which they will need to rely on in the future?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not immediately aware of the EC document to which the noble Lord refers. Many of your Lordships will have seen an article in The Sunday Times last Sunday about recruitment of foreign workers to deal with the skill shortages in the construction industry, which has been apparent for some time and has recently increased. However, I should make the point that the mobility of construction workers has always been an important feature of the industry and will no doubt increase with the advent of the single market in 1992. Employers must ensure that they invest in training to produce workers with the right skills at the right time and, I should add, at the right locations.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the old-fashioned apprenticeships in the construction industry have fallen by the wayside and why the construction industry now expects the Government to train their employees for them?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is not the Government who are training the employees but the construction industry training board. However, I agree with those detractors of apprenticeships that the existence of only one form of training to one level of competence is most certainly outdated. The time is overdue for a flexible modular system of training which will cover training to an advanced craft level and which will also allow employers and workforce to train and retrain to gain the skill levels appropriate to need.

Junior Hospital Doctors (Regulation of Hours) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rea: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to regulate the hours worked by junior hospital doctors. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Rea.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
3.27 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Cawley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Grey, E.

Jacques, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

City of Glasgow District Council Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will perhaps guess from the Short Title, the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill deals with two quite different subjects. I hope that it will be of assistance to your Lordships if I first give a brief overview of the Bill and then deal more fully with the detailed provisions.
The Bill is in two main parts. Part I paves the way for a new unified driver licensing system in Great Britain. There will be a single licensing authority and a single document showing all driving entitlement. The Secretary of State is also given additional powers to revoke or refuse licences on health grounds and new arrangements are made to ensure proper training of those who wish to ride motor cycles.
As your Lordships may be aware, drivers of motor cars, heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles presently require separate licences for each class of vehicle. There are nearly 31.5 million ordinary licence holders in Great Britain; about 1 million of them also hold HGV licences and another 300,000 also hold PSV licences. The familiar car licence is issued by the Secretary of State through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea. Licences to drive heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles are issued through independent Traffic Commissioners in nine traffic areas. This means that there are effectively three driver licensing systems in operation each with its own legislation and special rules. Drivers seeking licences to drive HGVs or PSVs must pass a special test and meet tougher medical standards than for an ordinary licence. These additional requirements will continue under the proposed arrangements.
At present one professional driver could have two or even three separate licences dealing with different classes of vehicles. He would also be answerable to

1029
two different licensing authorities, the Secretary of State and the Traffic Commissioners. This multiplicity of licences and rules can be confusing, particularly when lorry or coach drivers take their vehicles abroad. By contrast, most of the other EC member states have a single licence showing all driving entitlement, which is updated as any changes in the entitlement occur. This makes life much easier for drivers, for licensing authorities and for enforcement agencies.
The new system introduced by the Bill will include a single licence showing all driving entitlement. The Secretary of State will become the sole licensing authority and all driving licences will be issued centrally from DVLC. These arrangements should offer considerable scope for streamlining the process of issuing licences and for making the system more cost-effective. This should be good news for all drivers since the costs of issuing licences are reflected in the fees charged. In addition, drivers who go abroad will have the benefit of an internationally recognised licence. This will be of particular benefit to lorry and coach drivers who will no longer have to explain in other countries the significance of their supplementary PSV or HGV licences.
The move towards a unified driver licensing system is not only desirable in itself but is also necessary to enable the UK to meet its commitments under the law of the European Community. since the 1970s efforts have been made to bring driver licensing systems in member states into line. The first step was taken in 1980 with the publication of the first directive on driver licensing which required member states to start the harmonisation process. All driving licences were required to follow an EC model, a single document showing all driving entitlement.
When the first directive was published the Commission recognised that complete harmonisation would take some time to achieve; but efforts to complete the process are now gathering momentum. A second directive is expected shortly from the Commission to put the finishing touches to the process. This is expected to fix a completion date by which the licensing systems should be in line. Although there will still be a good deal of negotiation on the second directive the provisions in this Bill facilitate any changes that may be required.
The Bill is designed to make the changeover to the unified licence as smooth as possible. Car drivers with ordinary licences will not notice any difference at all, since there is no proposal to replace their existing licences. Holders of vocational licences will generally come within the new arrangements only as their existing licences come up for renewal. This should ensure an orderly transfer to the new system.
Part I of the Bill also introduces compulsory training for all new riders of motorcycles and mopeds. These vehicles make up less than 2 per cent. of road traffic, but a seventh of all road deaths and a fifth of all serious injuries are to motorcyclists. Although the accident rate is improving, motorcyclists remain one of the most vulnerable groups of road users. Many of those killed and injured are still in their teens, and lack the skill and experience of older riders.
1030
At the moment there is no requirement for motorcyclists to take any training at all. Learners can ride for two years on a provisional licence. If they wish to carry on riding they must pass both parts of the motorcycle test. In practice, many riders take neither training nor tests. They simply give up riding after two years or sooner, if they have a serious accident.
The Government announced in February this year their intention to introduce compulsory basic training for all new learner riders. This will replace the present Part I motorcycle test. The proposal has been widely welcomed, not only by road safety organisations and the police, but also by motorcycle manufacturers and dealers; by organisations representing training centres; and by motorcyclists themselves.
The second part of the Bill deals with driver information systems. In very broad terms, these are electronic systems for giving drivers route guidance, and warnings about current traffic conditions. Conventional radio broadcasts are of course an existing type of information to drivers, but the Bill does not deal with them. It is concerned principally with the more advanced systems (some of which are only now being developed) which require special equipment in vehicles to give individual drivers precise information about the particular areas in which they are driving.
The best known system is called Autoguide. This gives drivers recommended routes to their destination using an electronic display fitted to the dashboard of their vehicles. The advice is based on current information about changing traffic conditions ahead, including roadworks, accidents and congestion. Small roadside beacons transmit the information to the vehicle. I know that several of your Lordships have had an introduction to Autoguide through the demonstration scheme which the Department of Transport is currently running in the Westminster area. The setting up of this scheme was supported by the House's Select Committee on Science and Technology in their report last year on innovation in surface transport. Perhaps I could take this opportunity of inviting others who would like to see the demonstration to let me know.
Autoguide was conceived in the UK by the Government's Transport and Road Research Laboratory. TRRL have estimated that an Autoguide system throughout London could help drivers to reduce their average journey times by around 10 per cent. and reduce mileage by around 6 per cent. In short, the system has the potential to make better use of existing roads and to cut congestion.
The Government's view is that the success of Autoguide depends on commercial development and marketing and that the system should therefore be promoted by the private sector. A number of potential private sector operators responded enthusiastically to a consultation document which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport issued last April. As a result, the Government hope shortly to invite detailed proposals for a pilot Autoguide scheme in London, capable of

1031
being upgraded to a fully commercial London system. Similar schemes might then follow in other parts of the country.
The potential market for Autoguide extends beyond this country. An experimental Autoguidetype system is already operating in West Berlin. The Department of Transport has co-operated in drawing up a draft Anglo-German standard for an important part of the Autoguide technology, and co-operation with other member states on a European standard is planned. In time it might become possible to drive from Edinburgh to Paris, or from London to Rome, using the same route guidance equipment all the way.
Implementation of Autoguide will depend on Parliament's approval of the Bill now before your Lordships. In broad terms, legislation is necessary for two reasons. First, an Autoguide operator needs powers to install the roadside beacons and certain other apparatus. Much of the necessary infrastructure will, under established government policy, be installed only by one of the existing public telecommunications operators; that is, by British Telecom or Mercury. But some streetworks, particularly those near to junctions, will fall to the Autoguide operator himself and the Bill will give him the necessary powers to do the work.
The second reason for legislating is to ensure that the introduction of Autoguide and other systems like it can be carefully monitored and evaluated. TRRL's research suggests that Autoguide will produce major benefits. However, the best way of establishing accurately how a full commercial system would work is by mounting a large-scale pilot scheme, as we have proposed. That will allow the Government and the operator to examine in detail how a full system might affect, for example, current traffic management arrangements. It would allow us to judge, for example, whether the licence for a full system would need to restrict Autoguide traffic to main roads or whether such conditions would be unnecessary. The Bill sets out in some detail the particular provisions which licences might contain.
Although I have referred mainly to Autoguide in discussing Part II of the Bill, I must emphasise that the legislation is not concerned exclusively with that system. Other types of driver information systems may well be developed. It is not the Government's policy to protect Autoguide. On the contrary, we welcome the prospect of a variety of competing driver information systems, with different companies forging ahead with this exciting new technology and striving to offer individual motorists and fleet operators the best possible information and guidance. The Bill is designed to ensure that drivers are not denied the benefits of this technology, while at the same time providing for proper safeguards in essential areas such as road safety and traffic management.
That gives a brief overview of the Bill and I shall now go into more detail. Clause 1 carries out the primary purpose of Part I. It repeals Part IV of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Section 22 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, which require special driving licences for the driving of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles respectively. The
1032
clause also allows drivers with existing vocational licences to continue to use them until they expire, are revoked or surrendered.
Clause 1 also gives effect to the provision in Schedule 1 which transfers the present functions of the Traffic Commissioners to the Secretary of State. He will then have responsibility for determining whether or not drivers should continue to hold their vocational licences because of misconduct. If the particular misconduct carries mandatory revocation, as prescribed in regulations, then the Secretary of State is obliged to revoke the licence.
In other cases, he may refer the question of misconduct to the local traffic commissioner, whose determination will be binding. This is much the same arrangement as at present, except that the Secretary of State becomes the licensing authority. The Traffic Commissioners already exercise the jurisdiction on matters of conduct and, except for cases requiring mandatory revocation by the Secretary of State, they will continue to do so.
Clause 2 applies the arrangements that are peculiar to the driving of large goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles in the new unified licensing system. These are set out in Schedule 2. The clause also sets out the duration of the vocational element of any licence issued on or after the appointed day. At present, heavy goods vehicle licences remain in force for three years and public service vehicle licences for five years. In future, licences to drive any prescribed class of goods vehicle or passenger-carrying vehicle will generally need to be renewed every five years once drivers pass 45 years of age. For drivers of more than 65 years of age, renewal will be on an annual basis.
These arrangements will apply to both goods vehicle and passenger-carrying vehicle entitlement. This change ensures that drivers are subject to regular medical checks, since a medical report will be needed with all applications for renewal. It is essential that drivers of these large vehicles have their health checked regularly. We are only too well aware of the consequences of the driver of a lorry or bus collapsing behind the wheel in a busy road or motorway. Medical evidence suggests that most serious medical conditions arise from the mid-40s onwards. It is for that reason that we propose that licences obtained by young drivers should generally continue until their 45th birthday.
The clause also provides for the issue of short period entitlement of between one year and three years to individuals whose medical condition needs more frequent monitoring. This will undoubtedly be of benefit to some drivers who might otherwise lose their entitlement and consequently their employment.
Schedule 2 also provides that licences are not granted for large goods or passenger-carrying vehicles unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant is a fit person to hold the licence applied for. Questions relating to conduct may be referred to the traffic commissioner, who will decide whether or not the individual should have a licence.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 make changes to the licensing system which are designed to benefit drivers of cars as

1033
well as those of HGVs and PSVs. Clause 3 clarifies and extends the circumstances in which driving without a licence pending the grant of a licence is allowed. The intention is to ensure that drivers are not put off the road when they return their licence to DVLC for amendment or updating—for example, to record a change of address.
Clause 4 modifies the criteria for the acceptance of tests of competence and of previous licences when application is made for a new licence. First, it provides that an applicant who has passed the test of competence must apply within two years for a full licence. Failure to do so will mean that the applicant has to retake the test. Secondly, full licences held after the appointed day will be recognised thereafter without a time limit even if they are surrendered or if entitlement is allowed to lapse. At present where full licences are surrendered or not renewed after disqualification the holder can be required to take a second test after 10 years. This is not compatible with long period licensing and does not have any practical benefit.
Clause 5 modifies the powers of the Secretary of State to refuse or revoke licences on health grounds. The Secretary of State is enabled to require applicants or licence holders to take a more specific test of competence in order to determine their fitness to drive. This is particularly relevant where licence holders develop a medical condition. There should be no need to require them to take a full test when only one particular aspect of their driving ability is in question. The clause also gives the Secretary of State greater flexibility in the scope of the notices he can serve restricting entitlement to drive on health grounds.
Clause 6 will make training of new motor cyclists compulsory by introducing new limitations on the conditions of use of provisional motor cycle and moped licences. Those wishing to start riding will still apply for a provisional licence in the normal way. However, under the Bill, the licence will not take effect unless the holder has either successfully completed the prescribed basic training course or is undertaking training on the road as part of that course. In other words, it will become illegal to ride on the road unless the motor cyclist has completed the course or is being trained. We believe that this change will make a major contribution towards reducing the appalling toll of deaths and injuries to which I have referred.
Clause 7 applies the minor and consequential amendments set out in Schedule 3.
Clause 8 defines the key terms used in Part II of the Bill, which deals with the licensing and regulation of driver information systems. Broadly speaking, a driver information system is one which collects, stores and processes data from which driver information is derived or which transmits such data to motor vehicles. Data is defined in its technical sense. Driver information does not therefore include, for example, conventional traffic broadcasts on the radio.
Clause 9 requires a person who operates a driver information system which gives guidance on public roads to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State.
1034
In Clauses 8 and 9 there are provisions for the Secretary of State to make orders which would have the effect of excluding particular systems or types of information from the licensing requirement. This will enable my right honourable friend to ensure that the requirement is not applied unnecessarily.
Clause 10 empowers the Secretary of State to licence the operation of driver information systems and to attach terms and conditions to licences. The clause lists a number of specific conditions which could be included in licences. Clause 11 makes it an offence for a licensed operator to break a licence condition and enables the Secretary of State to revoke or suspend a licence in certain circumstances.
Clause 12 provides licensed operators with certain powers to install and maintain driver information system apparatus in public roads. The powers would be in terms of those contained in the streetworks code, which is part of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. This is the code which governs streetworks by undertakers such as British Telecom or British Gas. Licensed operators will therefore have to follow well-established procedures which involve, for example, notification of proposals to the relevant local highway authority.
Clause 13 gives effect to Schedules 4 and 5, which apply to licensed operators certain provisions of other legislation and provide for arrangements in respect of works by other undertakers which affect apparatus belonging to a licensed operator. The remaining clauses of the Bill contain the usual supplemental provisions, including provisions for repeals and commencement.
I have spent long enough outlining what is a wide-ranging set of proposals. They offer benefits to a great many road users; to drivers of lorries and buses, who will be able to obtain their driving licences more conveniently; to new motor cyclists, who will find themselves properly trained and less likely to face death or injury; and to motorists, for whom systems such as Autoguide could mean fewer delays and less wasted mileage. I commend the measure to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
3.49 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the Bill even though in regard to Part I there are still certain aspects which I shall require the Minister to explain. I propose to vary normal procedure and to open my remarks by dealing with Part II of the Bill. The Minister referred to the kind invitation which he extended to Members of the House to participate in the demonstration rides for Autoguide. My noble friend Lord Carmichael, who will be replying to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I took advantage of that kind offer. We found it a fascinating experience. We saw demonstrated some high technology and I am certain that the system will bring considerable benefit to motorists. We are grateful for having had the opportunity to take part in the demonstration ride.
The TRRL has estimated that Autoguide could save 12 per cent. of a motorist's time. Estimates of

1035
savings are always difficult to deal with because we all know of the estimates for the cost of the M.25. Those estimates have been proved to be rather useless. It is also estimated that in London alone there could be a saving to motorists of £100 million. Noble Lords will have seen the excellent material issued by the AA and the RAC which have actively participated with various concerns in the development of the system.
I shall return to Part I of the Bill later. However, despite the sort of "blessing" I have given to what I call in shorthand Autoguide and despite the benefits it may bring, I must ask why the system is considered to be worthy of priority over other important matters which ought to feature in a road traffic Bill?
There are two points in particular I wish to make. The Horne Report, which deals with the important issue of road works—commonly termed "holes in the road"—was published in November 1985. Three years later, legislation is still awaited.
The Minister made brief reference to the part of the Bill dealing with street works. Perhaps he will elaborate further, because I did not properly grasp what he said. Unless it is intended to bring forward a new street works Bill under the words of the gracious Speech:
"Other measures will be laid before you",
surely this particular road traffic Bill presents an admirable opportunity to bring forward Horne Report legislation. I am informed by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, with which I think most noble Lords know I have some link, that very good progress has been made in discussions between the local authority associations, the National Joint Utilities Group and Department of Transport officials. I am also informed that agreement has been reached on the basic principles on which legislation could be introduced.
The Home Report deals with the problem that leads to hold-ups and congestion—one of the reasons for the suggested Autoguide scheme as outlined in the Bill. It could well be that the installation of the driver information system—Autoguide—could have some effect in regard to the matters raised in the Horne Report. I am rather surprised that the opportunity has not been taken to deal with the issues raised by Horne in a road traffic Bill this year.
The introduction of a road traffic Bill is also surely an opportunity to bring forward legislation on some of the 137 recommendations contained in the North Report on road traffic law; and indeed the work of the joint Department of Transport and local authority association working party on traffic and parking. To bring forward a road traffic Bill without taking account first of all, as I said, of the Horne Report, and also of some of the proposals contained in the North Report, seems rather unwise.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State has said that full decisions on North are promised early in the new year; but that statement was part of a lengthy Written Answer which appeared in the Official Report of the other place on 26th July. The Secretary of State said:
"We have been able to form a view in principle on much of the report".
1036
Noble Lords will recall that penalty points changes mentioned in the North Report were rushed through for inclusion in the consolidation Bill. Surely, some part of the North Report review could have been included in the Bill before us.
Part II of the Bill deals with driver information systems. What will be the involvement of local authorities? There appears to be no mention of their position in the Bill. Surely local authorities must not be ignored, especially in route selection. It would appear from the Bill that only the approval of the Secretary of State is required in respect of roads to be used for the Autoguide system.
I am sure that the installation operators would find the help of highway authorities invaluable; it is also possible that the system would produce information of considerable value to highway authorities. There would appear to be need for agreement between operators and local authorities in relation to the exchange of information. That appears to be a vital necessity, although it is not mentioned in the Bill.
I have no doubt that there will be a general welcome for the suggested Autoguide system provided for in the Bill. Without bringing forward any carping criticism, I would just sound a cautionary note. Could it not be that the very success of the system, as envisaged, could bring an even greater influx of motorists into, say, central London? We might actually start to solve the problem and then create another one.
The Minister referred to the position of the system within the private sector. I wonder whether he can explain the provisions of Clause 10 in relation to the charging of motorists for the use of the information provided by the system. It may be my own lack of understanding of precisely what the words mean. I readily accept that that could be a possibility. However, the Explanatory Memorandum states that Clause 10,
"empowers the Secretary of State to acquire by purchase or otherwise information from a licensed operator and to sell or otherwise dispose of such information".
When I look at Clause 10 I find that subsection (8)(c) refers to regulations by the Secretary of State on charges that may be made to drivers by the licence holder—that is, by the person, the private sector body, which actually installed the operation. But subsection (8)(f) authorises the Secretary of State to make use of the information, including its sale, "as he thinks fit".
Am I confused on the matter? Or am I correct in saying that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to approve charges to be made by operators who sell the scheme, but also that the Secretary of State himself has powers to make such charges for selling the information to drivers? I should like to have that point clarified before the Bill reaches Committee stage.
Further, how is it envisaged that the provision in Clause 10(2) that more than one operator's licence may be assigned to a particular area will work out? That is what I believe Clause 10(2) actually says. But obviously there will be considerable room for consideration of Part II of the Bill in Committee.

1037
As regards Part I of the Bill, I must comment that it is only recently that the House passed a consolidation measure—namely, the Road Traffic Act 1988—and now the Bill which is before us makes considerable amendments to certain sections of that Act. I wonder whether one hand knows what the other is doing. My first criticsim is that although the meanings of a number of terms are given in various clauses—for example, Clauses 1 and 3—I find that we have to wait until we reach Schedule 2 to learn the meaning of LGVs and PCVs. Those are important definitions which replace the heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and public service vehicles (PSVs). It seems rather strange that we have to wait until we reach Schedule 2 before we find the definition of those new terms.
The Minister suggested—indeed, he did not suggest it; he made a definite —statement—that discussion on such matters started in the Community away back in 1980. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
"changes are necessary to comply with the requirements of the European … Directive … and the expected requirements of a forthcoming Second Council Directive".
How strong is that expectation? The Minister said that it will,
"facilitate any changes that may be required".
But what happens if the second directive does not meet the expectations which the Minister and his department think will arise under such a directive? Must we then have additional legislation to amend the amendments which have already been made to the consolidated 1988 Act?
Is it correct, as claimed by the TGWU in its response, that the reduction from 60 to 45 years of age for the renewal of a vocational licence to be accompanied by the relevant medical declaration is not because of the EC directive but arises from a decision of the Medical Advisory Committee of the Department of Transport? What medical evidence is there to support the proposal that the age for mandatory medical reports for goods vehicle drivers be reduced to 45 years of age?
In general, the framework for a unified licensing system seems sensible with its integration of the ordinary licence with the goods or passenger licence as the case may be; but there is no doubt that the relevant clauses will need to be examined extremely carefully in Committee. Will the loss of a goods or passenger licence necessarily mean the loss of the ordinary licence to drive motor cars, or will the licences be kept completely separate? Will there be regulations on that matter, or is it intended to insert a provision into the Bill? On the question of regulations, I note that in Clause 15 regulations in respect of Part II (the Autoguide) will be dealt with under the negative procedure, whereas in Schedule 2 on page 26, which relates to regulations in respect of Section 120 of the 1988 Act, there is no indication whether any of them will be dealt with under the affirmative procedure. Some of the amendments to the 1988 consolidation Act are so important that the affirmative procedure is desirable.
At the consultation stage, the TGWU submitted to the DVLC a four-page response to the proposals. I
1038
do not intend to deal with all the many points contained in it. Will the Minister let me know whether the department was involved in consultations with that union, which raised many points, and whether there was general agreement on those points?
From information given by the Minister, the points contained in the TGWU response, the information that we have received from other interested bodies such as the Road Haulage Association, the Bus and Coach Council, the Freight Transport Association, and so on, it would appear that there is a vital need for Notes on Clauses to be made available soon so that we can give detailed consideration in Committee to all the matters, and especially to Part I.
In its consultation document, the TGWU asked whether details of a passenger vehicle driver's employer will be listed on each driver's record at the DVLC. It is considered that such information would be useful when considering the application for renewal of an operator's licence as distinct from a driver's licence.
The operators' body (the Bus and Coach Council) has said that there is no mention in the Bill of whether the practice of passenger vehicle drivers having a badge indicating the area in which it was issued and the number is to be continued. The Bus and Coach Council has stressed that it regards the provision of a badge for a vocational licence for passenger transport drivers to be important and that it should be retained. We shall also need to look carefully at the provisions contained in the schedules with regard to appeals against decisions of the Secretary of State or the Traffic Commissioner, as the case may be.
I shall say just a few words about the suggested training courses for motorcyclists and moped riders. They will be generally welcomed. As the Minister has said, there is great concern about the shocking record of the number of young men and women who are killed and injured as a result of motorcycling accidents. The RAC carried out a first-rate voluntary training scheme until the grant from the department was withdrawn with the introduction of the two-part test scheme way back in 1982. That scheme disappeared once the grant was withdrawn. It appears that that provision in the Bill is an enabling one. Are the Government satisfied that there will be an adequate number of centres available in all parts of the country to provide that training? Unless that is so, difficulties will arise.
Do I understand that no official course will be provided by official centres and arranged by the Department of Transport but that it will be open for private undertakers to apply to the Secretary of State for approval to run such training schemes? If the latter, will the Bill provide for the Secretary of State to lay down maximum charges and other conditions? The Minister explained that when applying for a licence the intended rider of a motorcycle or moped would merely have to give an assurance that he had completed a training course or was being trained. Do I understand that it is not intended that the application should be accompanied by a certificate of a standard of competence to drive, which of course applies to motorists who apply for a driving licence?

1039
The Minister may have seen the chart which has been issued by the Motorcycle Association which represents the trade. It lists the considerable variation in legal controls for the riding of mopeds and motorcycles in the various EC countries. The variations are considerable. What do the Government propose to do in the light of the EC directive on the harmonisation of licences when all these variations apply at the moment?
My last point is that it is hoped that, if approved, the new training scheme connected with the application for licences to ride mopeds and motorcycles will be successful. Will the Minister give an assurance that the scheme will be monitored? I am not asking just for figures which say how many accidents there were before and after the scheme was introduced. I want the scheme monitored to show how all its various phases work. It will be noted that I give a general approval to the Bill. However, certain matters must be considered and some important items which we believe essential to a road traffic Bill have been excluded.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Minister for having explained the Bill in such clear detail. Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I should like to have Notes on Clauses as soon as possible. It would have been useful to have had them before the Second Reading debate but I know that that is not always possible.
The House will also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for taking us through the Bill in such detail and for asking so many of the questions that many of us would like to ask. That being so, I can speak quite briefly. One needs a fairly detailed knowledge of the 1981 and the 1988 Acts in order to pick one's way through the new Bill. That, again, is where Notes on Clauses would have been useful.
I have little more to say on Clauses 1 to 5. We shall all be happy that there will be one basic driving licence for everyone, with various categories within that licence. It will clearly make life much easier particularly, as the Minister said, for people travelling on the Continent.
The only question (which I am sure the Minister has already answered) is whether there will be any diminution of standards in terms of those people allowed to drive heavy goods and passenger service vehicles. Many of us who drive about this country, particularly on the motorways, still feel that the standard of driving of some heavy vehicle drivers leaves a lot to be desired. I do not wish to denigrate the skills of those people, but occasionally one finds oneself trying to keep to the speed limit and being pushed from behind by drivers of heavy lorries flashing their lights. Anything that will improve the standards of driving of these big vehicles is something of which we approve. I only hope that legislation does not go in the opposite direction.
I am glad the Minister is tightening up the medical requirements. As he said, they are one of the most frightening matters. Perhaps it is about time that we
1040
tightened up the medical regulations for ordinary car drivers as well, particularly the eyesight tests for ordinary car drivers.
Clause 6 dealing with motorcyclists is certainly to be welcomed. The 1981 Act, as has been said, introduced the two-part test but I believe that at the moment training only reaches of the order of 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. of new riders. That surely cannot be sufficient. The present schemes are under-used and I believe that there is room for absorbing the increased workload which will be imposed upon them by the new Act.
One of the slightly worrying points is, I understand, that the present training takes between 12 and 18 hours whereas the training under the new arrangements will be less than that. One hears figures of eight hours being mentioned. Are the Government satisfied that enough is being done within the new training schemes to improve the standard of driving of those people who are already being trained? In other words, is the quality slipping in favour of quantity? We favour more and more people being trained, but again let us make sure that standards do not fall. Too many young people are being killed and many are being disabled for life. That is something of which we must be ashamed.
I understand that the new test will be of a pursuit type, which means that the examiner will be following the driver. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong on that. If that is the case then I think that is very good. The idea of the examiner standing on the street corner watching a motorcyclist come round the block has never seemed to me to be a particularly adequate means of observing the candidate.
I hope that there will be scope in training for what is described as defensive driving or defensive riding. Having been a car driver for many years, I suddenly went on a police course in Manchester and realised what bad habits I had built into my driving over a number of years, and in particular that, as a young man, I had been somewhat aggressive in my driving habits. There is no doubt that if one can instil a sense of defensive driving—in other words, the ability to recognise a hazard and to go through it smoothly and get away from it as fast as possible—the number of accidents that might happen will decline.
I hope that the motorcycling organisations will accept the provisions in the Bill. Occasionally they have a tendency to be rather overdefensive. I think it would be a pity if the Bill, which is clearly intended to improve road safety for motorcyclists, were in any way opposed. Of course, if those organisations have any detailed comments to make, naturally your Lordships would be glad to tease out any problems they may have.
I turn to Part II. I was on the sub-committee of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology which looked at innovation and surface transport. We were very impressed by the potential of driver information which is now available because of new technology. We are very glad to see that the Government are supporting a development project of this kind, which is something that we recommended in our report to your Lordships. If people can get away with it without having to put government funding into the project, all well and good. It looks as

1041
though they have managed to do that, about which I am quite happy, provided that a satisfactory experiment is carried out. Certainly the people providing the technology seem to be willing to fund the project and that is to be applauded. However, there is clearly a need for licensing of these schemes and therefore one accepts the need for Part II of the Bill.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I was a little surprised to find there is no reference in the Bill to communications between the Government and local authorities. It seems to me that the local authorities will need to monitor the effects of these experiments in relation to the impact on their own local authority area. That information should be fed to the Government before they come to any firm conclusions. In order to do that, the local authorities will need some support with funding. There is provision in the Bill in Clause 10(9) for funds to be made available to the licence holders but there does not seem to be any provision for funds to be made available to local authorities for monitoring purposes. I wonder whether the Government would look at that again.
I think that the Minister has answered a question I was going to ask about the definition of driver information systems, but I should like to be sure. Clause 8(3)(a) relates to Clause 9(1) which says:
"… no person shall operate a driver information system in relation to public roads … unless he is authorised to do so by a licence".
If we do not have a sufficiently clear definition of what a driver information system is, one or two people could be in some difficulty. The Minister specifically excluded radio reports from that definition of the driver information system, basing it, as I understand it, on the definition of data in subsection (5). I wonder whether it is tight enough or whether it should say "electronically gathered information", or some such phrase, in order to exclude the possibility of people having to possess a licence to use a normal road map. That may sound rather silly, but it does not seem to me quite as clear as the Minister suggested it is.
I was also glad that digging holes in the road would be subject to the code of practice. Plenty of people are digging holes in the road already without adding more unnecessarily. Although there is supposed to be some co-ordination, it seems that very often the various authorities have just got one hole filled in when another authority comes along and digs up the same piece of road. I remember years ago seeing in the Manchester Evening News a short letter to the editor saying:
"My God, they've dug a hole in the street again!"
It was a heartfelt cry which I think all of us understand. I hope that the code of practice will be effective in this case because there must be co-ordination on those matters.
The other point is that there must be compatibility of systems. I am glad to hear that there is some discussion going on as to what is happening in Berlin. I hope that if other systems are to be introduced, they will also be compatible with continental systems. On the basis of what the TRRL has done, we have the opportunity to do rather well for British industry. It
1042
is to be congratulated on the work that it has done in initiating the system; I hope that we do not lose the compatibility at any later stage. I believe that if this kind of driver information can be introduced—and this was certainly the view of your Lordships' Select Committee—it could add enormously to drivers' mobility. It could also save a lot of money in the long run, not simply by letting people get to their destinations more quickly and safely, without going through traffic jams, but with the possibility of saving on roadworks. The necessity to construct more dual carriageways in urban areas can certainly be overcome by the use of driver information and other road traffic information. Certainly schemes such as the one set up by the West Yorkshire authority, which allowed traffic lights to be co-ordinated, has made a big difference to the way in which traffic flow is eased. That certainly applies to Autoguide. Therefore, the fact that proper experimentation will be allowed is to be welcomed. Certainly we welcome the Bill in general terms, although there will be quite a few detailed points that we shall want to raise at the next stage.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to add a few words of thanks to my noble friend for introducing this Bill and for giving us such a detailed and lucid explanation of its features. I must make an apology in advance as I wish to be excused later due to an urgent appointment outside. Therefore, I shall have to break my rule of normally staying until the end of debates.
The first part of the Bill concerning the unified driver licensing system has been so very adequately covered by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in the many questions that he asked—we shall have some fairly long debates in Committee—that all I wish to add is that clearly it will be an advantage to have one single comprehensive licence. It is vital that it should be compatible with the European system. It will clearly be of benefit to all, but there are a number of technical points which have to be ironed out.
I now turn to my old friend which appears in Clause 6—a compulsory system of motor cycle tests off the road before a licence is granted. I warmly welcome that provision. It contains certain features which I am not quite sure about, but the fact that this provision should at last be appearing on the statute book is a considerable achievement. It has been badly needed for years. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the RAC's pioneering work. That was very valuable work and it cost that organisation quite a lot of money. Of course when the department withdrew its grant, that put paid to that work. There is a good deal of such work going on now, but nothing like enough.
However, this provision will now make it compulsory for all applicants to take a course of training at an approved off-street training centre. An applicant must obtain a certificate at the completion of that training before he applies for his test. I make the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has made, as regards the training lasting normally eight hours. That does not seem to me to be long enough to teach a young person all that he or she

1043
needs to know about driving a motorbike and road safety. What we really want to obtain is young drivers who are safety seekers rather than risk seekers, which far too many of them still are. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, if we could manage to teach them defensive driving that would be quite something. But that cannot be done in eight hours. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to take a more liberal view on that. If, as a consequence of a longer period, the training necessitates a higher charge, which seems too high for an applicant to meet, the Government should step in and meet the rest of the cost.
This is the one moment when young drivers can really be taught something. They are under the control of the person conducting the training and they really can be taught something off the road about riding a motorbike safely. We must make the best of that opportunity. My noble friend has given us the terrifying figures of the loss of life and loss of limbs that occur among motorbike riders. Anything we can do to reduce those figures will be worth doing. If it costs money to do that, the equation must be on the side of doing it. I ask my noble friend to take note of that point. Perhaps we may return to it in Committee.
I understand that there are about 1,000 training centres in the country run by the British Motorcyclist's Federation, by RoSPA, by local authorities and other independent people. So probably there are enough centres, but my noble friend must make sure that the number of centres is adequate to meet the demand. If there are not enough centres, I am sure he will take steps to see that there will be.
I note that my noble friend is to introduce regulations in this connection. Obviously that is necessary. I ask him to ensure that consultations are widespread and that they involve all the interests concerned to make sure that we get these regulations right. I believe that when an applicant has received his certificate from a training centre to certify that he has reached the proper standard, he will then take his road test. It will be the road test that will be conducted on the basis of a pursuit test on the public road. That seems to me to be quite sensible.
On the driver information system, which I find a most welcome innovation, I congratulate my noble friend and the Secretary of State on the speed of the legislation in this very important venture. Anything which would give our congested traffic the benefit of this ingenious new aid would be of value. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, warned that it may attract more traffic into an area and eventually make things worse than ever. We shall have to wait and see whether that occurs. But the kind of estimates that the TRRL makes are usually pretty reliable. If this provision will save time of the order of 10 per cent., it will be most valuable to commercial users, and probably to private motorists too. That assumes, of course, that the charge for using it is kept to a reasonable level. The noble Lord is nodding his head because none of us will be able to afford the charge.
I had the interesting experience of a trial run of the system which the RAC kindly arranged for me. I was
1044
impressed by it. It seemed to work very simply. No doubt the complexity of the computer control system which causes it all to happen is very complicated indeed. But, as has been said, it works on a system of fixing beacons at strategic points which monitor the traffic, so that as a driver who is keyed into the system through a console on his dashboard moves along, he is instructed which turning to take as he comes to intersections. As he proceeds he is routed by the beacons, which pick up the densities of traffic in their area, and therefore selects the best route he can take to reach his destination. It is a very admirable system. When one sees it working in practice, one cannot fail to be impressed by it.
We must congratulate both GEC and Plessey which are working respectively with the two motoring organisations, the RAC and the AA, on all the preparatory work they have done in drawing up a system together with the TRRL and the Ministry. As a result of that work, it has now reached a state where we and another place can consider it with a view to the necessary legislation which will be needed to fix beacons.
I join with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that local authorities must be brought into the picture. They will be interested not only in the fixing of the traffic beacons, but also in what routes are taken and what the consequences are. My impression is that the system will probably improve traffic flow as it will prevent congested areas from becoming more congested than ever.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not also the case that local authorities will have an interest in those areas to which the traffic is moved, as it were, from the congested areas? That was why I felt that local authorities should have a special consultation on this matter. It is not just a matter of congestion being relieved, but that traffic is being pushed somewhere they may not wish it to go.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, that is true, but I make the general assumption that the traffic will not be pushed into residential areas. That would clearly be a complete failure of the system.
As I said, the RAC has teamed up with GEC and the AA has teamed up with Plessey. The cost of setting up a pilot scheme will be in the order of £5 million to £10 million and take about four years. It is quite a hefty undertaking. While I heard my noble friend say that he will welcome proposals, I wonder how that will work out. I should not like to see it fall between two stools because something goes wrong with the competition. We want to see a pilot scheme set up and operating in London as soon as possible and as soon as this legislation is on the statute book. The point has already been made that a similar pilot scheme is being promoted in Berlin. That is of great interest to us, as is the assurance that there will be co-ordination between us so that we can benefit from each other's experience.
I should like to conclude my remarks on that subject by again congratulating my noble friend, his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and the TRRL for taking time by the forelock and bringing forward legislation so that we can quickly

1045
benefit from a scheme which could be of considerable benefit to traffic not only in London but also in other large cities and therefore to the whole community.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate my noble friend on the way in which he has introduced the Bill. A Bill whose title starts with the words "Road Traffic" always encourages us to think of its omissions because we should all like to see a variety of other matters included, so seldom do we have an opportunity to consider a road traffic Bill. However, I shall try to keep my remarks to the matters in hand.
I turn first to the single unified licensing system. That must be a benefit, at least on paper. However, I share some of the doubts of some of the transport organisations about the efficiency of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea. Noble Lords will probably recall that that was the subject of an exchange between my noble friend the Minister and myself at Question Time recently. In both the heavy goods vehicle and passenger service vehicle worlds there are a number of anomalies which the change will not ease so far as I can see.
For example, an HGV or PSV licence applicant, on passing his test, is not enabled to take up his occupation until he is physically in possession of the licence or, in the case of the PSV applicant, the licence and the badge. That already takes a good deal of time and one would want to be assured that processing through the DVLC at Swansea will produce an improvement in the system. It is rather costly when one has trained a driver if in boredom at not receiving the paperwork to enable him to earn his living he then departs to some other occupation.
At some time, not necessarily this evening, we should like the Minister to reassure us that drivers over 21 but probably not holding either an HGV or PSV licence will still be permitted to drive those vehicles between garages and depots or on tests, in other words not plying for trade in the usual sense, on a normal licence. One would not want to see any diminution of that responsibility.
On the question of the unified licence I note that my noble friend said that it will be proposed to introduce a requirement for medical certificates in support of an application for the renewal of a licence. I should like to look very much further into the question of the age at which the Minister has suggested that that will operate, namely 45 years of age. He said—I think that it was the Minister but it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—that medical advice indicated that the health curve starts a downward trend at about the age of 40. That may be so in certain areas of health but it is not necessarily so in all cases. I am thinking in particular of eyesight and impaired vision, a subject which your Lordships discussed at very great length most of last summer and in the early part of the autumn when debating the Health and Medicines Bill. I suggest that we might consider reducing the age limit still further, perhaps to 35 years of age. Perhaps during later stages of the Bill we can be told when the health certificates will be required.
1046
I am tempted to suggest that the health qualification should also be introduced for the holders of private motor car licences. I do not want to upset the holders of licences valid until the age of 70, but perhaps involvement in any accident which is reportable should be followd by a medical test. I draw my evidence for the necessity of such tests from a study by McKean and Edington at Southampton University on the effects of glaucoma on motor car drivers—the "I did not see it on my left/right" syndrome. I think that we might make some small contribution to reducing the incidence of accidents if we did something of that nature. Perhaps my noble friend would like to tell me how he feels about that suggestion, perhaps later on in a letter.
I think that that concludes the comments that I wish to make on Clause 1 and also Clause 5 which strengthens the powers of the Secretary of State to refuse or revoke licences on the grounds of physical fitness. That is a sensitive issue for him but one which I believe that the Secretary of State has to grasp quite firmly. As I say, it could add to the safety of road users.
My next point relates to Clause 6. The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford have spoken about that clause. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who mentioned the possibility of the Government stepping in if the cost of motorcycle training courses became prohibitive, that I can see no reason whatsoever for the Government to step in and help people to train themselves to drive or to ride motor cycles. However, it is essential that the Government satisfy themselves that across the country there are adequate training facilities, of a uniform standard, and that the trainers charge reasonable fees. It has been suggested that the Bill should prescribe maximum fees only, but I do not believe that that is very important.
On the basis of the experience of the RAC in supporting motor cycle training, which as my noble friend said finished in 1982, I am surprised that the Government could think that any eight-to-12-hour training course is adequate. Both the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend spoke in terms of defensive driving and defensive riding. I think that they were talking about what I should call roadcraft, the sensibility of other road users irrespective of the ability to control a particular piece of machinery. Certainly I cannot see that being learnt or practised adequately in eight to 12 hours.
Lastly, I turn to that part of Part II of the Bill which deals with information services. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, sounded a cautionary note, in which he said that perhaps the success of this system might encourage a heavier density of traffic, or words to that effect. Of course that is so. It is a fact—is it not—that the Department of Transport continually and over successive reviews, has failed to appreciate that a new road generates traffic; for example, the M25. With a prediction of something like a 40 per cent. growth of traffic by the end of the century, one must use all efforts to direct that traffic in the best possible way. Certainly the information service that is proposed goes some way toward doing that.

1047
I look to that kind of system perhaps to make better use of all the roads that are available. I should not like to put a precondition on the pilot scheme or those who will operate it about the kind of roads, other than private roads, that the traffic should use. There is no doubt that a shortage of mile space—that is, the number of vehicles per mile exceeding the amount of space available—particularly around and inside London should not be maintained at the expense of under-utilisation of other roads.
Clearly any benefits from a system such as that described in Autoguide will be widespread. At this point I should like to thank both the RAC and the Automobile Association and those companies which have joined with them to promote similar schemes for their foresight and for expending large sums of money. Clearly the users will have to pay but also the non-user will benefit and that seems to me to present some little anomaly; in other words there is the free rider.
If traffic is to move more progressively and if there is to be a 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent. saving in traffic time, everyone will benefit. If in fact there will be a saving of £100 million as a result of reducing time wasted around London alone compared with an estimated loss of £2,400 million, other people will be beneficiaries and I wonder whether that is absolutely right.
I have one little niggle, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also referred. It appears frequently throughout the Bill and in particular in Schedule 2. Why have we suddenly introduced "LGV"? Irrespective of the definition, what is a large goods vehicle? We have had enough trouble—certainly in the last 20 years, as I can recall—in describing an HGV (a heavy goods vehicle). The definition in the schedule does not appear to be any different from that for HGV, which is something over 7.5 tonnes. In the same schedule we also have the ridiculous situation of talking about a "small passenger-carrying vehicle".
With HGVs, LGVs and PSVs, it is no wonder that many people do not understand what we are talking about. I urge my noble friend the Minister to find a commonality of definitions. Enough are banned in this kind of legislation. I welcome the Bill. I shall also welcome answers to some of the points made by noble Lords in this debate. Perhaps some issues, in particular on health and licensing, one might wish to raise in detail in the later stages of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this very interesting Bill. I have been a keen motor cyclist for 48 years and I still come to your Lordships' House on my motor cycle. I have long since ceased to be competitive on the roads. I now ride defensively and by so doing I hope to continue to ride here for some considerable time longer. I should like to confine the major part of my speech to the motor cycle section of the Bill.
Motor cycle and moped riders and the motor cycling industry have a relevant interest in all aspects of the Bill and in particular those proposals which
1048
relate to compulsory training. 1 shall come to that in a moment. The enabling legislation to permit harmonisation of driving licences throughout the European Community is warmly welcomed by the motor cycling industry. It is plainly nonsense that in this mobile age, when many British riders and drivers travel abroad for their holidays, some may find their licences invalid in the country of their destination. It is equally important for residents of other EC countries to have equal rights in this country.
It is understood—and the Minister may wish to confirm it—that Britain does not intend to seek derogation from the forthcoming European Community draft directive on licensing harmonisation. That is an important point without which there could be no equal validity of licences throughout the Community.
The differences that exist at present are most marked when one studies the rules in European countries for motor cycle and moped licences. Between them, the 12 European Community member countries employ almost every possible combination of age, training, testing, licensing and safety provisions, including power and weight regulations for drivers of different ages and experience. For instance, in Belgium, France, Italy and Spain, moped riders can start using a machine at the age of 14, with very few limitations. Britain permits moped riders only at the age of 16 and they are subject to a number of controls such as holding a licence and wearing a helmet. In total, access to mopeds in European Community countries is permitted between the ages of 14 and 17. Access to motor cycles, possibly of low power output, is permitted between the ages of 16 and 18, with Britain adopting a 17 year-old age limit and much stricter controls than many other countries demand.
I do not complain about the safety controls applied in this country. Indeed, the new compulsory training provisions are also to be welcomed in principle. However, if the variation in driver licensing for motor cycle and moped riders is to be smoothed out in a way that is fair to all European countries, then the present British rules on age limits will have to be reviewed. There may be considerable scope for varying age limits in conjunction with safety and training standards. It is important that the Minister recognises the need for flexibility in this issue.
The Bill gives legal substance to the Minister's proposal to require compulsory training for riders before they are allowed to use powered two-wheelers on the public highway. Clause 6(1) requires that riders being tested for the current Parts I and II examinations must show that they have passed an approved training course. Clause 6(2) means that provisional licences only have validity for riders if they have passed an approved training course or are on the public highway in the course of training. It also sets out the requirements that the Minister may impose on training standards and the training organisations. It also states:
"different provision may be made for training in different classes of motor cycles".
I understand that the motor cycle industry welcomes these proposals in principle. In fact the Motor Cycle Association, representing motor cycle

1049
manufacturers, made a strong call four years ago for the compulsory training of all new riders.
The Bill will provide enabling legislation, and it is unlikely that the Secretary of State will be able to introduce compulsion until mid-1990 at the earliest. In the meantime the Motor Cycle Association is asking all motor cycle dealers to use every endeavour to ensure that new riders take training before going on the road, despite the absence of legal compulsion.
What concerns me is that there are many areas in this country where training facilities are inadequate, and we understand that dealers in these areas may be unable to ensure that new riders take training before going on the road. However, I know that dealers take a responsible attitude to training in general and will be endeavouring to work within the spirit of the new law even before its introduction.
The Motor Cycle Association will shortly present the Department of Transport with a full audit of training schemes and training facilities in Britain which identifies parts of the country where there must be extra instructors and more training facilities before compulsory training can be brought in nationwide. The industry will discuss the findings with the department, and I hope that the Minister will welcome the important information that it will contain.
I wonder whether the Minister would also accept the principle that compulsory professional training now established by the Government should be adopted also for learner car drivers and drivers who are required to retake their driving test? The sad fact is that, however skilled the motor cyclist, the majority of accidents in which riders are involved are caused by other road users, and according to government statistics about half of all such accidents are caused by car drivers. Their skills also need to be developed for their own protection and to improve the safety of more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, pedal cyclists, and motor cyclists.
While on the subject of the health disability part of the Bill, health disability requirements, including possibly stricter tests, potentially affect all licence holders as they become older or recover from disabling illness. There is no specific indication that testing of riders would be any more severe than for other road users with similar disabilities, but the Minister's reassurance on this point would be most welcome. I should also appreciate his indication of the types of disability that are likely to come under stricter scrutiny. I welcome the Bill and I am sure that it will improve road safety, which is such an important part of it.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing this Bill to us. It is a most interesting Bill, and I look forward to the Committee stage. I apologise to the House in that, although I hope to stay if speeches are not too long so as to hear the Minister's reply, I am committed to an annual general meeting and must leave at a certain time.
I do not necessarily require a reply today, but I should like to ask the Minister whether this Bill
1050
would enable us to bring in a type of probationary licence. By that I mean the system that operates in Australia whereby a newly-qualified driver drives with a large P displayed on his car for a certain period after gaining a licence. I do not know whether the period is a year, or what it is, but something of that type would be a great safety measure. It certainly warns other drivers to be careful of that person as a new driver. Passing the test is just the beginning of the learning process, and not the end.
In the same way, I should have thought that those people who are driving on a limited medical qualification driving licence might show something. If you are a disabled driver you have something that identifies your car, which tends to make other drivers a little more patient. Whether or not under Euro terms we would be entitled to consider suggestions such as that I do not know, and I should like the Minister to let me know at some stage. The impatience of other drivers is a great problem, and one of the great causes of the intimidation of more timid or less experienced drivers.
I welcome Clause 5 and the clarification in terms of physical unfitness. However, I think it creates a difficulty that the DVLC should be so good in terms of people with progressive illnesses who get licences for one year, or three years, at a time and it considers that those people are fit to drive, when they are not allowed to drive unless they get insurance and yet no insurance company is obliged to offer insurance. This is rather an unfair situation, and I hope that this additional clarification in the Bill will make insurers take more seriously the fact that the DVLC has had a better proof to the fitness to drive.
Many in your Lordships' House have mentioned the problem of eyesight and impaired vision. This is a real problem. The noble Lord concerned is no longer living and that is why I tell you this story. My car was crushed in the car park here. The next day I asked the police officer if he knew who had done it. The damage was on the other side of the car and was not visible at night when I drove off. He said, "Yes, I know exactly. In fact, I saw it happen". He said, "That noble Lord drives by touch".
I thought that perhaps there might be something in that, and I was absolutely convinced when I arranged a meeting with the noble Lord concerned. We looked at my white car, which had a telltale mark of his car colour. He said to me, "Well, come and look at mine. I cannot understand when my car is in such perfect condition where that paint mark can have come from". I looked at his small, brightly-coloured Mini, and every corner was completely crushed. That gave me every reason to doubt his eyesight, and yet he was driving and believed that he was fit to do so. This question of eyesight is important, and it is a situation that many of us do not appreciate. Our eyesight could be deteriorating in terms of long-distance eyesight in traffic. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned impaired vision, and it is one of the most serious problems that faces us in traffic today.
I welcome the compulsory basic training for motor cyclists. In my work at County Hall I was always involved in trying to encourage young people to take motorcycle training. Like many parents, my heart

1051
sank when my daughter came to me and said that she wanted a large, powerful motorbike. When I could see that there was no way of persuading her out of it I said, "Well, only on the basis that you go and have training sessions". I think it was the police who did the training at Enfield. She went once a week for about 10 weeks, so that the course was probably no longer than people say these courses will be, and she became very competent on that motorbike.
In another committee that I was on we discovered that the point made by my noble friend Lord Nugent is so relevant. Young people who want motorcycles want to be seen to be rather daring. Therefore, if you can in some way tie in their training skills with some rather impressive and showy badge that you can achieve by becoming competent to a certain standard, you have more hope than if you are only impressing the safety angle.
The electronic display system is a different matter entirely in the Bill. I thank the RAC and the AA for the information they have provided for me. This morning I went out with another noble Lord for a trial drive. I was concerned to discover that it was electronic display. I worry about how one can watch that and the road at the same time. The driver said, "No, it is not like that. It tells you when to turn right in a voice". Another noble Lord said from the rear seat, "My wife does that!". I thought that that was a marvellous and true remark because so many spouses tell the husband or wife who is driving which way to go or which way to turn. For those who do not have that benefit, the new electronic system has great merit. There are problems with it. At the beginning it will be quite expensive. For it to become a success, it will have to be so effective that its use is widespread and the technology will have to be so inexpensive that everyone has it.
It was explained to us that the beacon would count vehicles passing. However, it would count only those vehicles fitted with the apparatus. If that is the case, it is not much use. One would want to know every vehicle that was passing, not just those fitted with the device. As the technology develops further, it seems that this will be possible. The bus counting devices already in place in the street count every vehicle that passes, not just those with a certain instrument, as I understand it.
The device also takes no account of stationary obstructions such as skips parked illegally, legally parked vehicles or—worst of all—the cones indicating road repairs. As a result, the information given may not be as helpful as one imagines. What looks like a road with little passing traffic may have such a obstruction in it. Those of us who know central London well are aware that it is now almost like one enormous building site. No matter where one goes, one finds that the road is up or lined with skips or cones. It is important for something to be done. I understand that, through the computer system, it would be possible for the information to be relayed back electronically about obstructions. However, they would not be picked up automatically by the beacons because they are in a fixed position.
1052
As to the question of main roads or minor roads, this will be sorted out by the pilot system. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said that he hoped that traffic would not be pushed into residential streets. I do not think that that is a great risk. Throughout my traffic planning days we spent our time preventing people being rat runners. Traffic systems and no entry systems have been developed to such an extent that whole areas are not open to passing traffic. I do not think that we need worry about that. I think that it should be possible to use whatever roads are available for through traffic now.
There is great cause for concern in London today. One noble Lord wondered where the traffic was going to. This is an overall problem in London. Because there is no strategic control over the whole of London traffic, each London borough is keen to move the problems on to the next borough and to do away with any problems in its own area. The Department of Transport would be well advised to consider seriously taking a more overall view of London traffic movement. Its attitude has been that the London boroughs between them can agree these matters. That is not working. Anyone involved in traffic in a local borough now will confirm what I say.
Mention was made of the Home Report by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I had an Unstarred Question on the Horne Report tabled for a whole year in the House. No one was interested in it. I could never get anyone to support me in asking for the report to be debated as an Unstarred Question. I think that it is highly relevant. The streets are dug up repeatedly, which is a waste of public money. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, there is the repetitious digging of the same place, which results in a degree of obstruction and loss in terms of traffic movement. The report considers how reinstatement could be carried out by the electricity board or the gas authority instead of the task of restoration going elsewhere. That would speed up the process. I hope that, through the Bill, we shall be able to look again at the Horne Report.
It is hoped that the DVLC through the new legislation will be able to make printouts and information more rapidly available for magistrates' courts. In the court in which I sit, we regularly have to put off cases for a month at a time to allow yet another month to produce the necessary printout. With the new system it is hoped that that will be easier. It would be very useful and would save much public time and money if the system could be so centralised and efficient that the information was more readily available.
It is a most interesting Bill. The pilot scheme is a great innovation, and may prove to be a huge benefit. It will need refinements and expansion and will have to be taken up in a larger way, but it is a beginning and I hope that it proves to be a success. I support the Bill.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, there is a certain challenge in following the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. She was very amusing; I am not going to be in the least bit funny. The Whips have rightly chosen

1053
us to speak because we are talking about different areas.
The Bill looks like an innocent Iamb; it is not. Equally, it is not a wolf. When I first looked at it, I thought it uncontroversial and sensible. This may still be so. However, as in all legislation, there are hidden depths and anomalies that need to be fully discussed in its passage through the House.
I shall deal only with the passenger service vehicle element, although other issues may creep in. I say that because, while innocently doing a little rewriting in the Princes Chamber, a certain noble Baroness—whom we all respect and of whom we are all very fond—said to me, "They have been talking about the motor bicycle driver and how he has to be trained. What about the victims?". For the noble Baroness, I make the point that the victim is very often forgotten. For the noble Baroness's sake, I have mentioned the point. I now return to my own speech.
The transfer to the driver and vehicle licensing centre may be a very good thing because there are long delays in obtaining test appointments and in the issue of licences. The situation for various reasons has deteriorated to an unacceptable degree. In some traffic areas delays of up to eight weeks after the test can occur in issuing the licence. This may have followed a period of up to 12 weeks' waiting for the test.
When I started to write this speech, I included the word "centralisation". Here in the Chamber, however, I recall that at one time that word was totally unacceptable. The difficulty is to find an alternative. There will be sympathy for noble Lords in this predicament.
The driver and vehicle licensing centre must improve on an unsatisfactory state of affairs. There is a shortage of drivers in most traffic areas: in some areas it is becoming severe. The situation is not helped by a delay of up to 14 weeks during which a person is engaged but cannot work as a PSV driver. He must be given alternative work or find temporary work. Often he finds alternative employment and therefore the training and employment costs are wasted.
When an operator intends to introduce a new service or a network of services the 1985 Act requires six weeks and that timescale must be strictly adhered to. In those circumstances it is difficult and often impossible for an operator to recruit and train drivers in order to have them licensed in time to operate the increased level of service.
A temporary authority is required, such as the pink slip. It can be issued immediately after a person has passed the test and can relate to the ordinary driving licence or the heavy goods vehicle licence. The department has said that a licence should be issued within seven days after the test. It may be an improvement, but it is still unacceptable. We are told that the pink slip is not issued because there is no provisional licence. But the industry is not convinced that that is satisfactory. It is a matter to which I must return in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the badge system of PSV drivers. At present each driver
1054
has a badge showing letters and numbers indicating the issuing traffic area. So far the Government have not mentioned how that is to be dealt with. It would take too long to describe the necessity for retaining the bades but the industry—both employers and employees—believe that they should be retained.
The Bill proposes that the PSV arid HGV licences should be valid until the holder is 45 years old, instead of being valid for only five years as at present. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth dealt with that proposal. The Bus and Coach Council has indicated to me that it agrees with the proposal in broad principle. I am unhappy about it.
I am relieved and delighted to note that the Traffic Commissioners will retain their present role in relation to drivers' conduct. In 1985, and in order to further my public service vehicle education, I visited a traffic commissioner's office. I found it to be a rewarding and valuable experience. I was extremely impressed with the way in which the office was run and the dedication of the traffic commissioner and his staff. Traffic commissioners are respected by both the public service and heavy goods vehicle industries.
I am unhappy with the long period before renewal of a licence. Some drivers may not have driven a public service or heavy goods vehicle for 10 years. Should they be allowed to drive such a vehicle without retraining? There may have been increases in the width, height, length and weight of the vehicle and also advances in technology? I believe that a new directive is awaited from the EC about licence categories and that the decision is almost imminent. I understand that details will be given well before the Committee stage.
The Bill gives your Lordships' House a unique opportunity to clean up one or two grey areas which exist in public service vehicle licensing. One such area is that at present county council authorities which use school buses are allowed to employ non-PSV drivers in the operation of local services. That is totally ridiculous. It is a nonsense that a loophole should exist within a licensing system.
In 1985 the Government promised that the requirements for those holding PSV licences were to be extended to all drivers of vehicles adapted to carry 17 or more passengers. They aimed to introduce the provision on 1st April 1987, or as soon as possible after that date. A man or woman could pass the driving test at the age of 21 and on that date drive a double-decker vehicle on contract carrying 17 or more people. That is an area in which the Government promised to act. They have not done so; they should do so.
There is a great deal of work to be done by your Lordships during the remaining stages of the Bill. I understand that there is to be only one day for the Committee stage. I have four amendments to table, and I am dealing with only one part of the Bill. We shall be kept very busy.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Teviot. I should like to congratulate the Minister on so ably guiding the House through the Bill. He explained

1055
Part II of the Bill but I am afraid that I still do not understand it. Perhaps that it is because I was brought up with candles and am not proficient in modern thinking. I shall deal exclusively with a few parts of Part I.
In my view, the new licence is an important step forward, and it will be welcomed by all distance lorry drivers, including those who travel on the Continent. Will it still be necessary to hold an international driving licence in addition to that which is issued by those at Swansea after a long delay?
My noble friend touched on the length of time taken to obtain a licence. I have in mind my eldest grandson who has taken his driving test today, and I am anxious to leave your Lordships' Chamber to discover whether he has passed. In view of the delay is it possible for the examiner to issue a paper to the examinee at the end of a test stating whether he has passed? That paper would be valid until the official licence was issued. It is an idea but perhaps the Minister has already thought of it.
Noble Lords may expect me to say something about Clause 5. I should first like to record the deep sense of gratitude felt by those of us who are physically disabled. The phrase used in the Bill is "physical unfitness". We are grateful to the dedicated mechanics who make it possible for one to drive almost any kind of vehicle, however bad one's disability. They are friends to all of us. Where would we be without them? We should not be in your Lordships' Chamber and should probably still be at home. It is only because of the expertise of those people in adapting all kinds of vehicles that the lives of the physically unfit are made worthwhile.
As we all know, disability takes many forms. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lady Gardner of Parkes for raising the subject of impaired eyesight. I am absolutely convinced that quite a number of bad accidents would not occur if people had to pass an eysight test and a frequent one at that—I suggest every five or 10 years. As noble Lords will realise an eyesight test is not now mandatory after the initial passing of the test in order to gain one's licence. My eyesight was perfect when I passed the test many years ago when I was 18, but I should be the first to admit that I now have to wear glasses. Some other people do not wear glasses and it is in that context that accidents occur. It is vital that one should be able to correctly measure distances and judge the speed of vehicles both in front and oncoming. If one cannot do that then accidents occur.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned a test at the age of 35 rather than 45 for some licences and I think I agree with him. Therefore the frequency of testing will be something which is important for the Swansea licence division to warn us about; namely, that one's licence will expire if a test is not taken. I believe that it is very important that we should be warned as to when one should take a further test or that one's licence is due to expire. In my view, this Bill is an excellent opportunity to make eyesight testing mandatory for as long as the Government think fit.
1056
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron admitted to having driven a motor cycle for 46 years. I believe I rode as a pillion passenger on a motor cycle when I was about 14, which is rather a long time ago, and I was terrified and should be terrified now. I hope that the Highway Code will be very much part of the test for those young people because they are usually young. I know that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron is somewhat older than the age group which I envisage. However, most motor cyclists are young and I believe that a test of the Highway Code is necessary as is a test on different conditions on the road because it is very important that they should be able to brake or occasionally stop skidding. Therefore, I believe that they should have more than 12 hours' tuition.
I am glad that Schedule 3 makes it clear that volunteer drivers are still allowed to drive. One thinks of people in Scotland, in urban areas or even more in the countryside where voluntary drivers take out eight or 10 people in a minibus. They perhaps take people to or from hospital, or in the countryside collect people to take them to church or other meetings. They will not have to pass a special test. I believe that that is very important.
That is all I have to say before Committee stage. I do not believe that it will be a long Committee stage because this is a good Bill, and I hope it will have a fair wind.
5.25 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to carry on from where my noble friends Lady Macleod, Lord Lucas and Lady Gardner have left off.
Will the Government consider introducing a requirement that every driving licence holder must have, perhaps every five years, an eyesight test certificate, because under Section 99 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a person may possess a driving licence up to the age of 70 having originally obtained that licence aged 17 under Section 101? Although Section 96 makes it an offence for any person to drive with defective eyesight, he may be unaware of the poor quality of his eyesight unless tested.
As my noble friend Lord Brabazon has already stated, Part I of the Bill modifies health requirements for drivers but I have not found anything in it dealing with eyesight. The 1988 Act is a consolidating Act into which nothing can be added. This Bill is the first opportunity for the Government to be able to legislate to make sure that drivers can see to drive. Unfortunately one's eyesight may deteriorate at any age and, as has already been said, some people with poor eyesight should not be driving. It should not be expensive for any driver to obtain either from his doctor or optician a certificate to state that he has passed an eyesight test. I suggest that there should be an amendment to this Bill making it an offence under Section 96 to fail to have that test certificate. However, it does not need to have anything to do with Swansea.
Otherwise I believe that this is an excellent Bill and I wish it a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe that everyone would agree that this has been a very interesting and full debate. Particularly when one is on this side of the Chamber, when this point is reached, everything has been said, and since I am not competent to give the answers to many points raised by noble Lord's that makes matters more difficult. Obviously I shall look forward to what the Minister tells us.
We are grateful for his explanation of the Bill. We must also be grateful for the very thorough examination of the Bill undertaken by my noble friend Lord Underhill. Due to those two explanations we may not be quite so dependent on Notes on Clauses. However, instead of ploughing through two excellent explanatory speeches it may be good if, particularly on some of the points raised today, the Minister will give us some Notes on Clauses.
There is no doubt that by and large the Bill has been well received. The three parts of the Bill are not absolutely connected. One wishes that motoring and roads legislation could become more consolidated than it is at present. I believe that this Bill was brought forward because the Government are anxious to put through Part III of the Bill. Therefore, they included other things at the beginning which perhaps seem to be less important. I may be doing the Minister an injustice; perhaps the new rules on HGVs had to be included because of pressure from Europe. However I am glad that after many months and years we have now harmonised with Europe in one respect.
Incidentally, I take it that the new licence will be Euro-compatible—I think that was the phrase used. This is perhaps a small point, but does this mean that when the new licence is available we will not need to rush to get a translation for Italy? I think that is the only country which requires a translation of the driving licence. If I remember rightly, I believe you must have an international licence for Spain, but I am not sure about that. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position.
There is no doubt about one point that was dealt with by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and also the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, who always attends any debate in which motorcycles are concerned. We must all pay considerable attention to his great expertise and his continued faith in the motorcycle after so many years. One of the charming aspects of this House is that there are so many people with different skills. Having spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, on a number of occasions I know that he is not only a motorcycle user but has a very attractive little collection of motorcycles.
A number of noble Lords mentioned eyesight. I do not know whether the Minister is happy with the eyesight test for drivers but I suspect that it is a general feeling rather than there being any evidence that bad eyesight is a serious contributary factor to road accidents.
I was particularly fascinated by a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who
1058
unfortunately has had to leave before the end of the debate. She referred to the Australian special "P" plate on vehicles, suggesting "provisional", which is displayed for a period after passing the driving test. For a long time one of my hobby horses has been the abuse of the "L" plate in Britain. It is most annoying to see vehicles displaying "L" plates with drivers who obviously are not under instruction. I know that other noble Lords and Members in the other place have raised that point on a number of occasions. Therefore, I do not believe that the inclusion of another plate indicating that the driver is on probation would carry a great deal of weight in this country unless we do something about the abuse of "L" plates.
Generally speaking, this part of the Bill was well accepted. There were a few comments on the delays at the DVLC. I know that there is a new computer and would be glad to hear whether it is in complete working order now. One problem was that the wrong computer was chosen but that criticism is made with hindsight and I now understand that a great deal has been learnt and the new computer established.
We have had a great deal of expert information on the training of motorcyclists from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and also the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who has a respected record at RoSPA. Anything that can be done to reduce the serious number of motorcycle accidents is obviously to be welcomed.
Perhaps the most interesting and fashionable—if that is the right word—part of the Bill is Part II and the proposals for Autoguides. Like my noble friend Lord Underhill, I too thank the Minister for having made arrangements for us to travel in a car through a part of London to see how the Autoguide works. The experience was fascinating and interesting. It demonstrated great possibilities for certain jobs. However, I would have some criticism if the system were to be fitted to all cars. I assume that cars would have some indication to show that they are fitted with an Autoguide and if, after using the side roads, motorists try to make their way into the main road I am not sure whether I would be all that keen to let them in. I may be awkward in that respect, but perhaps some aspects need to be considered.
I can see enormous advantages for commercial companies in regard to deliveries, and so on. No doubt the system would first be set up in cities. If it is to be established throughout Europe I imagine it would not be difficult to buy the correct hard or soft discs to operate it in any city which is suitably equipped.
I am always cautious about the savings that can be made with such proposals, particularly if one adds up all the savings that have been promised with all the different techniques used. I remember a very old man, a pipe smoker, who told me many years ago that if you had all the gadgets that cool the tobacco in one pipe you would end up with pneumonia. There is probably something in that. There have been so many promises of savings. Clearly there will be savings but no doubt they will be swallowed up by the general increase in traffic in our major cities and more specifically in London.

1059
Reference was made to the North Report and why we are not proceeding with a number of proposals which should be seriously considered for our inner cities. For example, has the Minister anything to say—it is part of the whole question of saving and an improved flow of traffic—about the special wardens employed by Westminster. I am sure that if they do their job properly, and are allowed to do their job properly, that would be at least as good a saving as Autoguide—and I mean on top of, not instead of.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, regarding rat runs. I believe that the Dutch say that when you enter a residential area you should consider yourself a visitor; and we should all have some respect for that view. I do not think the noble Lord used the words "rat runs" but he said that if the roads are available they should be used. Rather than have roads blocked at one end, or a combination of that and one way streets, I would prefer that certain roads were not included in the Autoguide scheme. That is why I believe it is imperative that local authorities should be involved in decisions. The local authorities are closer to people who hear that their road is to be included in a scheme and the people can protest to them. It is a closer democratic link with the problem than one would get—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I certainly did not refer to rat runs. 1 was speaking about the better utilisation of the road system and I leave it at that. I do not believe that roadways are necessarily for playing in or for car parking. They are part of the transportation system. All I am looking for is the best utilisation of the roadways and the road networks.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sorry. I appreciate now what the noble Lord was saying. I believe that it is a great pity that we have lost the roads for children to play in. They were part of the growing-up process and they were a great help to many children. I was staggered by the increase in traffic and by the information given by the Minister. I believe he said that there are now 31·5 million licences. Every time one looks at the figure it is increasing. There is no playing in the roads now. I believe that there is a point at which local authorities should be involved in order to give guidance as regards the kinds of roads that should be used for road space, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. We know what we mean when we say that a road is a residential road or otherwise. I can see a much beleaguered Minister finding difficulties with the centre of a big city and deciding to open up roads when local residents and the local authorities find it to be quite wrong.
I believe that we shall have an interesting Committee stage. With the points made by the Minister and those that he will conclude with, perhaps we shall not require full Notes on Clauses, but I believe that we need one or two as regards HGVs and the licensing part. There are one or two very difficult concepts to be dealt with. Other than that, I wish the Bill all the best.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our debate today has been both wide-ranging and constructive. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part and who have raised so many important and topical issues. I am also grateful for the general welcome that the Bill has received this afternoon. I shall be able to say a little about the Government's position on these issues as I now attempt to respond to the main points that have been made. Many detailed points have been made as well and I cannot promise to answer them today. I have no doubt that some of the issues will return at the Committee stage. I can tell noble Lords that full Notes on Clauses will be available tomorrow which I hope will assist noble Lords.
Our debate started with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and though he welcomed the Bill, he implied that in addition he would have liked to have had legislation concerning the Horne Report and the North Report. Perhaps I may briefly say something on those two subjects.
The Government are committed to introducing legislation at a suitable opportunity to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act along the lines recommended in the Horne Report. We fully accept the strength of the case for early legislation, but pressures on the legislative programme make it impossible to give a commitment to any particular Session. We shall continue to seek an opportunity to introduce the Bill.
However, the time has not been wasted. Utilities, highway authorities and .the department have been doing essential development work on fleshing out the bones provided by the Horne Report. Agreement on contentious issues has been reached. As regards the North Report, as your Lordships will be aware, it was published in April of this year and it contains 137 recommendations. We considered it essential to seek the views of interested organisations before reaching final conclusions. We aim to announce them in the New Year and legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.
I turn now to points that have been raised on Part I of the Bill. I shall attempt to deal with those before turning to the motor cycling provisions at the end of Part I, and finally to the subject of the Autoguide. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether we would need further legislation if we were not dependent upon the second EC Directive. The Commission has now submitted the text of a draft second directive to the Council of Ministers and detailed negotiations will begin next year. We shall need additional powers if the council does not agree to our proposals for small goods vehicles and minibuses containing up to 17 seats. Noble Lords may be aware that that is a very topical issue. However, this can be effected by regulations under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about consultations with the TUC on Part I of the Bill. Officials of my department recently met TUC officials and representatives of the affiliated unions. I believe that the meeting helped to clear up a number of concerns. As regards the retention of badges for bus drivers which was a matter raised by my noble friend

1061
Lord Teviot in addition to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the provision of PSV drivers' badges is a matter for regulations. There will be full consultation on this aspect of driver licensing before any changes are made.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether the loss of a goods vehicle licence would mean the loss of an ordinary licence. It will not. The loss of a goods or passenger-carrying licence will not necessarily result in the loss of the ordinary entitlement. The Secretary of State will have power to revoke the vocational element without removing the ordinary entitlement. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked why the definition of passenger-carrying vehicles is in Schedule 2. That schedule inserts a new Part IV in the Road Traffic Act 1988. Schedule 3(9) also inserts the same definition in Section 108 which provides for the interpretation of Part III as regards ordinary driving licences.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, sought an assurance that the standards of vocational driving would not be lowered. That certainly would not be our aim at all. Road safety will remain the primary object of driver licensing. There is no intention to lower the standards for vocational driving. There is no real change in the Bill to the actual tests that have to be taken.
As regards the question of medical evidence for changes in the duration of entitlement (a point raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill) it is commonly agreed in the medical profession that the mid-40s is the time when serious medical conditions begin to appear. This is borne out by the cases coming before our medical advisers in Swansea. It is essential that drivers of large vehicles with such medical conditions are identified at the earliest moment. Public service vehicle drivers already have regular medical checks from the age of 46 years. The new arrangement will bring the drivers of large goods vehicles into line with that policy.
My noble friend Lord Lucas complained about the time taken for issuing licences by the DVLC. Ninety per cent. of driving licence transactions are dealt with by the DVLC within six days. On average traffic areas take about 20 days to deal with HGV or PSV transactions. I expect unification to lead to a quicker service for new lorry and bus drivers. My noble friend also asked whether drivers who had passed the test for large goods or passenger-carrying vehicles would be able to drive before full licences are granted by Swansea. The answer is yes because the drivers will have the benefit of the existing provisions in Part III.
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron asked whether the United Kingdom intended to seek derogation from the proposed directive on driver licensing. No, my Lords; the Government support the idea of licence harmonisation. We shall be pressing the Commission to make some changes in the negotiations on the directive, but the directive may permit different national approaches on certain matters.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked whether car drivers should be subject to the same medical checks as vocational drivers. My answer is, no. Drivers of ordinary cars are required by law to report any
1062
medical conditions that affect their ability to drive. Because of the serious consequences of a collapse at the wheel of a lorry or a bus, tighter controls are needed for vocational drivers. My noble friend also asked whether existing exemptions in regulations would be continued under the new system. Provision for exemption from vocational entitlement will be made in the light of consultation and to the extent permitted by the second directive.
My noble friends Lady Macleod and Lord Balfour and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the possibility of mandatory eyesight testing. My noble friend suggested that the Bill should make driving with defective eyesight a criminal offence, or at any rate should require one to have a test certificate. As the existing rules stand, a motorist must at all times meet a standard of visual acuity equivalent to an ability to read a vehicle number plate from a distance of 75 feet for characters 3½ inches high.
Drivers are required to notify DVLC if they become aware of any eyesight condition which affects their ability to drive. Some 60 cases are referred to the centre each day for investigation. Where necessary, arrangements are made for specialist eyesight examinations. Research studies have not identified poor eyesight as a significant factor in accidents. There is no evidence to suggest that the present arrangements are failing to meet the requirements for road safety.
All of us who drive are already obliged to notify the DVLC if our health deteriorates in a way that could affect our ability to drive. That applies just as much to eyesight as to any other problem. The beauty of the number plate test to which I have just referred is that it is something any of us can check at any time we want.
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron asked whether car drivers who are disqualified should be required to take a professional driving test. The disqualification is itself the penalty. Drivers who are required to take a second test are required to prove that they are up to the level of competence needed for cars. It would be unfair to expect such drivers to reach a higher standard than is expected of ordinary car drivers.
My noble friend Lord Teviot asked about delays after the test for the issue of the licence. This is covered by the existing Road Traffic Act, which allows a person who passes a test to drive while his full licence is being issued. This will not change, but the application for the licence must be made within two years. Under the new system this will also apply to vocational drivers. The question of delays in traffic areas is being looked into to see what can be done in the short term. In the longer term, the position should improve when the operations are transferred to DVLC.
My noble friend also asked whether drivers of school buses would be exempt from the higher medical and test standards. They are at present exempt from PSV licensing. This exemption will have to be reconsidered in the light of the second directive and consultations on implementing the regulations. My noble friend also asked about driving after an absence of 10 years. Possession of a licence does not of itself ensure that the holder is driving the vehicle in

1063
question. Some drivers never sit behind a wheel once they have passed the test. The 10-year rule can be unfair on drivers who leave the country and return after some years. A requirement to pass a second test is not compatible with long period licensing.
My noble friend Lady Macleod asked what would become of the international driving licence. It will still remain and will be necessary when visiting certain countries which are not EC members and do not recognise our licences. The new licence will be recognised in all other member states of the EC. No transactions will be required when using it in any of those countries. My noble friend Lady Macleod asked about what happens when people pass the test now. They are given a piece of paper. This is already provided for and will continue. A certificate is given to a successful candidate and a notice of failure to an unsuccessful candidate. It is my understanding that a certificate of passing and a provisional licence is the equivalent of a full driving licence.
I should like to deal now with the distinct subject of the motorcycle test. I am glad that this has been widely welcomed in the House. However, there were one or two causes for concern with which 1 should like to attempt to deal. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Strathcarron touched on the sufficiency of training facilities. As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, there are more than 900 training centres throughout the country. If all those currently involved in training continue under the new system there should be adequate coverage. However, as it will now become compulsory, it is quite possible that more will open up.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about monitoring of the compulsory training scheme. I can assure him that it will be monitored not just in terms of casualties but also with regard to the standard of the training. The noble Lord asked whether the Secretary of State will specify the charges trainees may have to pay. My noble friend Lord Lucas also touched on this subject. Clause 6(2)(c) gives power to make regulations, and that includes the power to specify any charges that may be payable by those undertaking training.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Lucas were concerned about the length of the compulsory training course. They mentioned the fact that it might be eight hours or a full day. They suggested that that would not be enough to teach new riders all they need to know to survive in today's traffic conditions.
The basic training course we propose can provide only a minimum level of training but that is far more than the majority of new riders receive at present. However, under this provision all new riders will be put in the hands of experienced training instructors. Together with the new, more exacting pursuit style riding test, further training to bring riders up to the required standard will become more desirable. I should also like to explain that the compulsory training will not only be off-road. It will also include road riding under the guidance of training instructors. I should point out that, although the basic course may last only one day, the rider must get a certificate at the end of the course. If he does not
1064
achieve that in one day he will have to train for longer.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, queried whether motorcyclists will have to submit their certificate of training with their provisional licence application. Riders will already have received their provisional licence before they are able to undertake the compulsory training. Several noble Lords mentioned the need for teaching defensive riding skills. We indeed recognise the need for such skills to be taught. The compulsory training course will include some of the necessary defensive riding techniques which will have to be grasped before trainees undertake the on-road element of the course. If riders take further training, as we hope they will, this will give training organisations further opportunity to instil in riders all the skills necessary to ride safely.
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron mentioned the motorcycle industry's call today for motorcycle dealers to ensure that new riders receive training. We very much welcome this statement which asks dealers to do all they can to persuade new riders to be trained—prior to the compulsion which will be introduced in due course.
My noble friend also suggested that car drivers, like motor bicycle riders, should also have to undergo compulsory training. But, unlike motorbike riders, most car drivers—I believe 95 per cent—already take professional instruction. So we see no need to introduce similar provision for them. My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve asked whether the Highway Code would be taught to riders as part of the compulsory training course. I can assure her that important elements of the Highway Code, such as correct procedures on left and right turns, will be included in the course.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill and the Autoguide clauses. I was glad that the system was also generally welcomed this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wondered whether the widespread use of Autoguide would simply increase the amount of traffic on our roads, coming into London for instance, and hence add to congestion.
We do not believe that that will be the case. It is possible that some drivers, especially private motorists, could find that Autoguide gives them the reassurance to make journeys which they would not otherwise undertake by car. The market for Autoguide is likely to be concentrated largely among fleet operators and those who drive for business reasons. Commercial and business drivers rarely have any choice about whether to make a particular journey; their work demands that they do. The great benefit of Autoguide is that it will give them the best routes for essential journeys and allow them to avoid the traffic jams which can cause so much delay and frustration.
I would not pretend that we can foresee precisely how a commercial Autoguide system will evolve. That is why we propose that the system should be implemented gradually, starting with a pilot scheme which can be fully evaluated. At the moment, however, I think that we should all be encouraged by the TRRL's estimates, which I have already quoted and which have again been referred to this afternoon, of the average journey time reduction of 10 per cent.

1065
As regards the local authority involvement in establishing the Autoguide system, earlier this month the Department of Transport wrote to all the local authority associations inviting their comments upon the possible role of local authorities in the arrangements for evaluating the proposed Autoguide pilot scheme in London. Officials will be discussing that aspect with the associations next week. We believe that it is most important for the relevant local highway authorities to have the opportunity to be involved in the detailed assessment of the pilot scheme, since this will play a large part in determining the operating framework for subsequent commercial schemes.
As regards the question of whether the Government should fund local authority monitoring of Autoguide, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the Bill does not provide for the Government to fund such monitoring. We see no reason to make such special arrangements. However, we are discussing with local authorities how they might be involved in monitoring the proposed pilot scheme. The department is making available considerable resources for research and evaluation of the pilot scheme through the TRRL.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised certain questions about Clause 10. He referred to the Secretary of State's power to collect charges from users and he mentioned various other points in relation to that clause. The fact that those provisions are in Clause 10 does not necessarily mean that they will be used in every licence which my right honourable friend issues to the operator; they are designed to allow sufficient flexibility for my right honourable friend to negotiate and agree appropriate licences in each case. We must bear in mind that these systems are in their infancy and they must have adequate provision to deal with future developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was worried that the definition, "Driver Information Systems", might include ordinary mapmakers. I can assure him that the Bill will not lead to the makers of road atlases requiring a special licence. Moreover, the Bill provides power for my right honourable friend to exclude particular systems from the licensing requirement if inclusion would be inappropriate. So there is the flexibility to ensure that licensing is not unnecessarily applied.
The noble Lord was also concerned that it might lead to more holes in the road. We must of course strike a balance; we must minimise so far as is possible the burden of extra street works. But we must also do what is necessary to facilitate the provision of such new systems, which could offer great benefits to many motorists, including that of avoiding other roadworks.
The ability of the licensed operator of a driver information system to undertake street works will be tightly defined. He will be bound by the street works code in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 in just the same way as existing statutory undertakers such as BT. The Secretary of State will have power to impose conditions in an operator's licence specifying, for example, the roads upon which apparatus cannot be installed.
1066
Finally on this subject I turn to the fears which have been expressed that the Autoguide system may result in "rat running". We have no reason to think that Autoguide will increase the overall volume of traffic on minor roads. Main roads generally offer quicker journey times. The problem is often choosing the right main road, which is exactly where Autoguide can help by giving advance warning of congestion. But the large-scale pilot scheme, to which I have already referred and upon which we shall shortly be inviting private sector proposals, will allow the Department of Transport to evaluate in detail the likely effects of a commercial system, including the effects on minor roads. As I have said, we hope to involve individual highway authorities in the monitoring arrangements. However, as I think my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, there are indeed many other means of controlling rat runs and evidence of that can be seen in nearby Pimlico. Indeed I think that that was a good example.
I hope that I have answered the main points which have been raised this afternoon. However there were very many and I have no doubt that we shall encounter some others in Committee. But in the meantime I am grateful for the reception that the Bill has received in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1988
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the three sets of draft regulations before us are concerned first with the exclusion from civil legal aid of actions raised under the simple new small claims procedure; secondly, with increasing the financial limit of legal advice and assistance including assistance by way of representation (ABWOR) work which solicitors may undertake without prior approval of the Scottish Legal Aid Board; and thirdly with clarification of the criteria to be applied to the provision of ABWOR. They will enable solicitors to proceed more quickly with legal aid work. These improvements, which have been developed in consultation with the Law Societ y of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board, demonstrate our commitment to an effective and efficient system.
I shall now take each of the draft regulations in a little more detail. The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1988 exempt small claims processes from civil legal aid by extending the list of excepted proceedings at Part II of Schedule 2 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. The small claims procedure, which is the subject of the Small Claims (Scotland) Order 1988, came into effect on 30th November. The procedure is straightforward and is designed to be operated by a claimant without the need for assistance from a solicitor. Proceedings are

1067
to be conducted in an informal manner and the claimant should be able adequately to pursue his or her case in person without a lawyer. We are however providing that civil legal aid should be available for small claims appeals, since these must relate to points of law and be made to the sheriff principal. Moreover if a case is remitted into conventional summary cause of ordinary cause procedure legal aid will at that point be available.
The Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) (No. 3) Regulations 1988 will increase from £60 to £150 the financial limit on the cost of legal advice and assistance (including ABWOR) which a solicitor may undertake without the prior approval of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, subject to certain specified criteria. This provision clearly will enable solicitors to proceed more quickly than before with work in the important and urgent areas specified.
The Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 correct an omission in the amendment regulations which came into force last August. Criteria applying to the availability of ABWOR are applied also to the extensions of such availability made by the August regulations. The opportunity has also been taken to consolidate those regulations for the convenience of practitioners.
We have made a further significant improvement to the provision of civil legal aid in the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1988 which came into force on 30th November. Those regulations enable the Scottish Legal Aid Board to make legal aid available under specified circumstances for work carried out as a matter of urgency, thereby streamlining further that important part of the legal aid system. Those regulations also exempted from recovery by the board certain small, vital articles of property belonging to an applicant which have been successfully recovered with the benefit of legal aid from poinding under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations which conform closely to the statement made in another place by his honourable friend Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. No objections were made from my side of the House. I have looked to see whether anyone else had any comments to make. The department obviously consulted widely before it tabled the regulations for which there has been general agreement. I am pleased to accept the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) (No. 3) Regulations 1988
6.11 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1988
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [1st report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Package Travel: ECC Report
6.12 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne Lord Broxbourne rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Package Travel (20th Report, 1987-88, HL Paper 107).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I rise to move the Motion, some of your Lordships may wonder why that task falls to me. There may be those who recall the story of the counsel and the judge. The counsel was pleased to hear the judge say that of all the counsel opening a case, he would prefer him to any other. Greatly gratified, counsel ventured to ask to what he was indebted for the compliment. "It is always interesting", said the judge, "to see which of two fresh minds first grasps the point of the case." I am not wholly uninformed on this matter. That is not due to any of my own efforts but because I have had the advantage of an excellent briefing by our committee staff and from the learned Mrs. Eileen Denza, the committee's legal adviser. In addition, there was stimulating discussion within Subcommittee E.Cuius minima pars sum.
Reference to that committee leads me to a sad note. Your Lordships will see a list of the Members of the sub-committee responsible for the report at page 25. The names include that of the late Lord Silkin with the sad note recording his decease. Sam Silkin was a friend of mine for many years, from student days in the Middle Temple. He was a man of varied and versatile achievement, in Parliament (both Houses), at the Bar as Queen's Counsel and in government. He brought distinction to all he did. It could fairly be said nihil tetigit quod non ornavit. We mourn his loss and cherish his memory.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, your Lordships will notice that we have the advantage of a mass of expert evidence, much of it oral and therefore subject to the salutory process of cross-examination. There is an impressive list at Appendix 2 of the witnesses and those they represented. Appendix 3 has an intriguing glossary of acronyms, as they are called. Some of the abbreviations in that glossary will be familiar, others less so. Indeed they might be suitable for parlour

1069
games this Christmas—guessing what those curious acronyms mean.
The report deals with package travel, a relatively new term. Travel had different connotations in earlier times. It was a traditional part of the English way of life, but only for the privileged. Indeed, for many, part of the attraction of travel in those days was to get away from fellow English. Your Lordships may recall a saying of Laurence Sterne:
"An Englishman does not travel to see Englishmen".
The basic attractions in those days were, on the aesthetic side, scenery, art and architecture; and on the corporeal side, the delights of food, wine and a warmer climate. Two hundred years ago Horace Walpole wrote to his friend Sir Horace Mann in Naples:
"Here in England, summer has broken out with its customary severity".
In case your Lordships may think plus ca change plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose, that was a century before Thomas Cook, the first and greatest of the travel agents, started his package tours and with them the democratisation of travel. Of course, democratisation of travel is welcome—a sign of progress and important in the life of the citizen. There is a passage quoted in the report from the National Consumer Council's memorandum:
"For most people holidays are the high spot of the calendar. They represent a brief respite from the working week, an opportunity to recharge batteries and to relax with one's families. They are expensive and normally require saving for throughout the year. For these reasons expectations are high and the people who sell holidays market dreams".
The price of progress is the problems. There again, in the same memorandum the problems are described by the National Consumer Council in these words:
"Changed hotels or resorts, overbooked aircraft, lost baggage and brochure descriptions about non-existent swimming pools are all matters which should give rise to compensation. When things go wrong on a holiday the distress is often greater than if similar misfortune beset the consumer at home. A bad holiday can never be put right".
The existence of these problems and the desire to pursue progress have resulted in the initiative of the Commission, which in turn results in this report. The draft directive of the Commission is identified at the start of the report, sub nomine 5382/88. Your Lordships will not find the text of the directive in the report but it is available in the Printed Paper Office. Some of the key articles are set out in the report. I understand that it is not normal practice, though permitted, to incorporate the text of directives in reports thereon, though perhaps it is a good practice in many cases.
That being the background of the matter, these questions seem to arise: first, is the Community legislation necessary in this context or at any rate desirable? If the answer to that is yes, then, secondly, is the directive as proposed by the Commission procedurally correct; or if not, can it be made so? Thirdly, is the proposed content satisfactory and, in so far as it is not, can it be made so?
On the first question, the answer would seem to be, yes. There is a general unanimity of view in regard to this major question. Your Lordships will see in the report:
1070
"Virtually all witnesses agreed that there was a good case for Council legislation to establish common rules for the protection of package travellers."
This would seem to be a fairly obvious conclusion in a matter so essentially international as travel. The reasons are set out in rather more detail in the text of paragraph 9 on page 9 of the evidence part of the report.
The answer to the first question being yes, the second question arises as to the legal basis and procedural propriety. The report analyses the legal basis of the proposed directive and concludes that it is incorrect. It should be based, we thought, on Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome and not, as proposed, on Article 100A under the amending Act. The reasons for that are given in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the report. It is not a mere technical consideration. It is important because, as your Lordships know, directives based on Article 100 require unanimity in the Council before they can become effective, whereas those based, as suggested here by the Commission, on Article 100A require only a qualified majority in the Council.
The committee is vigilant on questions of the correct legal base and on maintaining the proper distinction between Articles 100 and 100A. However, although this is always important in principle, it is less important in practice in this case than in many others because there is a recognised need for Community legislation which can be made procedurally correct.
I come then to the third question as to the content. The basic answer as to content can be found in the summary of conclusions at paragraph 72 of the report. It reads:
"Although the package travel industry has been very successful, consumers now want and are ready to pay for a better service. The package traveller is economically vulnerable and needs greater legal protection. There is a good case for Community legislation".
Many of the articles in the directive are important, in particular Article 3 dealing with brochures and advertising matter, Article 4 dealing with forms of contract, and Article 5 dealing with liability.
Advertising and brochures are a very important part of package travel. Travellers are dependent upon them and are at risk. These matters are dealt with in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the committee's report. It is agreed that what is proposed in the directive is reasonable and strikes a fair balance.
Travel contracts are dealt with in Article 4, which is described in the committee's report as the heart of the matter. It gives the consumer four basic rights which are listed in paragraph 23 of our report. The rights the consumer would have, which are set out in the report and which your Lordships have before you, should do much to help on this basic matter. Paragraph 23 states:
"Article 4 may be regarded as the heart of the Directive. The Commission's draft goes most of the way towards prescribing a compulsory standard form of written contract for package travel. The consumer is given rights of four kinds: a right to transfer his booking if he is prevented from travelling for serious reasons, a limited protection against surcharges, a right to withdraw if agreed terms are altered and a right to alternative services and compensation if, after departure, there is a significant deficiency in the services promised".
I draw the attention of your Lordships to the reference to standard forms of contract in particular.

1071
I regard that as a very welcome and important innovation. I have some experience of standard forms of contract, not in the case of package travel but in building contracts. Indeed, come early next year my nice legal publishers will be celebrating—not of course in this Chamber, but just along the corridor—the jubilee of the work on that subject with which I am associated. I certainly hope to see some of your Lordships present on what I hope will be an interesting and agreeable occasion. Noble Lords will be cordially welcome at that event.
The relevance of the experience in standard forms of building contract does not of course lie in any similarity of subject matter with package holidays, but because it shows that standard forms of contract do not necessarily imply any rigidity. In the case of building forms of contract, many new variations within the standard form have been prescribed to cater for new methods and new circumstances. In that respect, that may be a precedent for the standard forms of contract which are recommended for the travel industry.
There are many other matters referred to and analysed in the report. I need not go into them in further detail as the report is summarised at Part 4 on page 24. The summary is concise but comprehensive. Your Lordships will see the various recommendations, not only those that endorse the recommendations of the Commission but also as regards certain matters in which an amendment is desirable and should be sought for and I hope obtained.
The summary as set out in the report is, as I have said, concise but comprehensive. That being so, I think it would be as well to follow the advice of an eminent and well-loved parliamentarian who posed the following question:
"Why peer into the crystal when you can read the book"?
Perhaps noble Lords would do better to follow Aneurin Bevan's advice and study the matter in the book, rather than rely on what would necessarily only be a paraphrase on my part. With that, I commend the report to noble Lords, and with diffidence and great respect I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Package Travel (20th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 107).—(Lord Broxbourne.)
6.35 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to be the first Member of your Lordships' House to follow the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, in this debate. I am very grateful for the gentle way in which he led us into this debate. I am absolutely certain that everyone in the House will, like me, have read the report. But we will not have had the benefit of the pleasure that I sense members of the committee had in taking part in the committee proceedings. When I look at the quality of the members of Sub-Committee E, I am very impressed. I also echo the sadness of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, as regards the passing of our dear colleague Lord Silkin of Dulwich during the passage of the inquiry.
1072
My stance will be primarily that of supporting the thrust of the directive and of the report of your Lordships' committee. Someone has referred to something as being the best thing since sliced bread. I think the package holiday is the best thing since sliced bread. Millions of people have been able not only to have a holiday with a difference—that is, with sunshine—but have also been able to enjoy those holidays over many years.
My first package holiday was about 20 years ago. For two weeks in June I paid the princely sum of £49 to go to Austria. I was horror-struck when the next year the price had rocketed to £72 to go to Yugoslavia.
The package tour has a great deal to commend it. It is well worth looking at what the committee said in the report on page 18, paragaph 49, when it stated:
"The package travel industry has been highly successful. Over the last thirty years tour operators and travel agents have made it easy and affordable for millions of Europeans to holiday abroad, and there is every reason to suppose that the numbers will continue to rise. On any long-term analysis this has contributed to raising the standard of living and promoting closer relations between peoples—both fundamental objectives of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community".
I hope we can start with the generally accepted premise that we are looking at a success story; that is the establishment of what we now know as the package holiday industry. But we are equally entitled to be very critical of the way in which some aspects of it are bringing the business into disrepute. At the end of the exercise we want not only to improve the lot of the travelling public but also to improve the strength of the business and to extend the benefits of holiday travel to many more people.
In this country I understand we are talking about a number of anything up to 20 million package travel holidays which are arranged in any one year. We are talking in terms of very big business. But we are not talking in terms of a monolithic business. There are little tour operators and little travel agents, and there are big tour operators and big travel agents. I declare an interest through my association with the Co-Operative movement, which last year in its 180 shops provided package holidays for 250,000 customers.
One of our businesses, the Ilkeston Co-op, in one shop sells more than 50,000 holidays a year—the biggest single travel shop in the country. Equally, there are some areas where there are no shops. It is a disparate type of business. We are considering the impact of that business on people's lives, health and happiness.
For the most part I shall ask questions, but it is interesting to be able to be fair about the extent of complaints which have been made. There is evidence which would alarm the reader about the number of package holidaymakers who come back dissatisfied with their lot. Yet, in the evidence submitted by ABTA (published on page 53 of the report), there is a quotation from a survey entitled Europeans and their Holidays which was produced by the Directorate-General of Transport (Tourism) of the Commission of the EC. The point is made in the report as to whether that is more up to date and therefore more relevant than some of the statistics used by others.

1073
That survey, as Members of this House will have noted, shows that:
"The overall picture is one of a very high degree of satisfaction. On a scale of one to 10 (10 being 'completely pleased') respondents gave an average rating of 8.17 for their main holidays in 1985 and, if they had been away more than once, of 8.28 for their other holidays".
Again on page 53 it says that:
"The draft should therefore, in our view, be considered against the true background which is that some 85 per cent. of holidaymakers in the EEC are satisfied with their holidays and furthermore there is a slightly higher rate of satisfaction on holidays organised by tour operators and/or travel agents".
I am delighted to note that the noble Baronesses, Lady Elles and Lady Burton, are present and will be taking part in the debate. They are closer than I am to the issues because of their experience, service and commitment to this particular subject. I hope that they might help me in considering how we can reconcile what appears not to be irreconcilable but which causes a problem. To be fair, the committee points out in its report that there is a dichotomy. I should welcome some observations on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, referred to page 24 of the report and the summary of conclusions. 1 shall use that in part to make some other points.
We are discussing an industry which is subject, as are many others in 1988, to new phenomena. One of the phenomena that the travel business had to face this year arose because ABTA held its annual conference in Israel. Last year it held the conference in Austria, the year before it was in Australia and next year it will be held in Mexico. Yet when ABTA decided to hold its conference in Israel it was subjected, and its members as individual companies were subjected, to what I consider to be absolutely outrageous treatment by the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
Perhaps I may tell the House what people conducting the kind of business we are discussing tonight had to suffer. They were told in a letter from the PLO:
"This office has already circulated a list of conference sponsors to representatives of the two million strong Muslim community in Britain asking them to boycott such firms. Consideration is now being given to extending the boycott to firms sending delegates to the convention".
I think that that is deplorable.
"By holding the conference there (that is Israel), ABTA is abandoning its political stance and siding with Israel and recognising its rule, against the position of the British government. Accepting Israeli sponsorship makes this all the worse, opening ABTA to charges of having its conscience and reputation bought … By going to Jerusalem, ABTA is boosting Israeli tourism and undercutting the impact of the Palestinian uprising. This is wholly unacceptable and will not be forgiven by Palestinians, the Arabs or the Muslim world in general".
In a debate in which we are discussing not only the welfare of the traveller but also the viability of the business I take this opportunity to point out that although many things have changed in the nature of the business, we could do without pressures of that kind on a business which is fiercely competitive.
When one looks at what the British holidaymakers get for their money I know that there will be no dispute that the British package holiday provider
1074
offers his product more cheaply than anyone else, if not in the world certainly in Europe. These are people who fly from Gatwick to Portugal and people who fly from Cologne to Portugal. The people who fly from Cologne will pay between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. more for exactly the same holiday. That is a product of the efficiency and organisation of the British travel business in general, as well as of some of the concentrations of power in other countries.
I ask the House to pay particular attention to some of the special points which I wish to draw to the notice of the Government. As I understand it, in laying greater responsibilities on the travel industry and by setting out in precise terms who is covered by those responsibilities one excludes from those responsibilities other people who provide package holidays. For example, paragraph 66 on page 21 says:
"There is no difficulty about imposing on the tour operator a duty of professional care in the selection and supervision of contractors to perform the services making up the package, and requiring compensation for any breach of that duty".
Paragraph 66(i) states:
"There is no obvious reason why the package traveller should be placed in a better position than his neighbour who booked his travel directly".
Yet when one turns over the page and looks at paragraph 66(ii) one sees that:
"In respect of deficiencies attributable to a hotel owner or his servants, the tour operator should be strictly liable".
The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, or the Minister may be able to clarify the position. Is it the case, as I understand it, that in future there will be planeloads of travellers, some of whom will be package tourists and some of whom will not and some of whom will be covered by the directive and some of whom will not? If that is the position, is it what we want? If it is not what we want I should like the Minister to tell us what the Government have in mind, because we have before us the views of the Commission, of the committee, of the House and, more importantly, of the Government. The Government in time will have to be precise and tell this House and others what they intend to do.
There is then the question of strict liability, which the report itself said was perhaps the greatest of the issues that needed to be resolved. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who has gone into print in a letter that I saw in a newspaper, pointed out that a sum of 23p (I believe that is the figure she used, and I have seen a figure of around 2 francs in the report) will give the kind of cover that is needed. We are talking in terms of coppers. That is all that is required to give the comprehensive cover which is not currently available.
Yet when I approached ABTA and asked for its views on this matter I was told that when it comes to a question of liability one first of all needs to establish the market. There has to be an insurable product. I look directly at the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, at this point. He has an interest in the building industry. Perhaps he will recall the dilemma that occurred when the Government produced a Housing Bill about five years ago which removed from local councils their sole right to give building permission and allowed it to go to architects, engineers and elsewhere. When a quotation from the insurance

1075
world was sought and a view requested as to what it would be prepared to charge for cover of that kind, enormous difficulties were raised which have lasted until this day.
I ask the House whether all that we need to envisage is an on-cost per holiday in the region of 20p or 30p? Or are we looking at something in France, which is the source of the quotation, that is not directly comparable to that which the directive asks us to concede? I suspect not. ABTA has given to other noble Lords as well as to me—the figures were not given exclusively to me—an indication that its best estimate of the cost, if it can obtain that cover, is between £5 and £15. Let us say it is £10. It is not a sum that will spoil any holiday.
In the report a great deal has been made about the willingness of holiday-makers to pay more for their holiday. Where is the evidence for that? It is not in the report. A statement is made by the Consumers' Association that people are prepared to pay more for their holidays, but where is the evidence for that? I have not seen it. There has been a vast increase in the number of holidays taken, but the majority are being bought at the lower end of the market and not the middle or higher end. I should like someone to answer my question. If there is a directive and this kind of cover has to be carried, the industry will be faced with a dilemma. What is it likely to cost and what will it cover?
On page 141 of the report there is an interesting piece of evidence from Mason-Bond which says that it writes on behalf of the International Leisure Group. It points to the kind of circumstances for which cover will have to be carried in some form or another. It lists some of the things that can happen in an hotel—events to which nobody can give any forethought or for which they can take any responsibility. In the context, if these events are not acts of God they are nonetheless totally unforeseen incidents.
For instance, in the resort the local authority commenced roadworks outside the hotel. How can one hold a tour operator responsible for discomfort or hurt arising from such an event? I should like the Minister to tell me that that is not what is meant. However, if it is meant, perhaps the House will agree that it is onerous, punitive and unfair to lay the blame on anybody, let alone the tour operators. Then there are the quiet owners of the separate hotel next door who begin work to add an extra storey to their building. When I read these illustrations I understood that they were direct complaints by returned holidaymakers. There is the example of a guest in the hotel who gets drunk and becomes offensive, or the possibility of a waiter accidentally dropping soup on a customer. How can one possibly say to the tour operator or travel agent that he is responsible.
A great deal is made of the warranty of the tour operator. How can one expect anyone to carry a warranty in respect of actions of a third party?
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, who is very experienced in these matters, will help the House and me in particular at some later stage. I am conscious of the time and of the fact that other noble
1076
Lords wish to speak in this debate. I believe that the travel industry warmly welcomes both the directive and the report. There are however some very real problems faced by the travel industry if it is to stay in business and continue to provide in the future the kind of services that it has given to consumers in this country in the past.
6.56 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that we on these Benches favour any ideas or concepts which lead to further harmonisation of all kinds of activities in Europe. As regards package travel, package holidays and package tours we feel that there is definitely room for European legislation in some respects. Indeed that is reflected in the very excellent and clear report. I congratulate the members of your Lordships' committee, some of whom I see in the Chamber today, for having put the issues so clearly. It is very welcome to someone like myself who, at least in the context of debates in your Lordships' House, is new to the subject of travel and the way in which package travel will develop in the coming years, particularly with our growing participation in Europe.
When I read the report it seemed to me that there was an immediate difficulty—and other noble Lords may touch upon it—which is that in the 12 countries of the European Community there are different legal systems. So far as I know, in this country at present there is no statute covering package travel which is subject to the normal laws of contract, tort and so on. I understand that in other countries the situation is somewhat different. That therefore is one of the problems that have to be tackled.
There is also a very different pattern of travel in this country. From the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who said that he booked a package tour for £49 some time ago—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Twenty years, my Lords.
The Viscount of Falkland:—I venture to suggest that in this country we were perhaps in the vanguard of the development of package travel, especially at the bottom and cheaper end of the market. The point was brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the level of satisfaction registered is very high. I do not quite know how the figures for levels of satisfaction mentioned in the report were obtained, but they are very encouraging and I have no reason to doubt them.
If 85 per cent. of travellers who go on a package tour are satisfied and feel that they have had a better holiday than they would have had had they travelled independently and without the services of the tour operator, it means that there is an extraordinary proportion of satisfaction. Nevertheless, there is always the problem—and it is highly publicised—of disappointment. There is no doubt that the traveller's disappointment gets publicity. It is one of the areas attacked by this proposed legislation of the draft directive.
I think that in many ways the draft overkills. It takes a number of aspects of travel and proposes

1077
various types of legislation to cover these aspects of travel, and in particular brochures. When somebody who is of limited means decides to save up to go on a holiday, presumably the first thing that he does is to get hold of a brochure if before that he has not got the recommendation of a friend who has gone on a similar holiday. In the past, brochures have been subject to criticism. However, in my experience in recent years brochures are well produced and fairly clear.
I am worried about the small print, as other noble Lords will he, because people do not read brochures carefully. They are cleverly produced with lots of pictures, and people tend to look at the pictures rather than at the small print. That has been dealt with very well by the Association of British Travel Agents. One does not want to put too great a straitjacket on tour companies in the preparation of their brochures. They should be clear, and they should offer the holiday in clear terms and not give misleading information. Although the package tours on which I have been have been of a specialised nature, I have looked at other brochures and have found them by and large to be satisfactory and attractive.
Another area covered in the draft directive is the right to transfer. This is something that has always been a bother and has worried people, and is subject to an enormous amount of complication. If you ask a travel agent—or a tour operator, if you deal directly—whether you may transfer, he suggests to you that you should take out various insurances and make certain arrangements in order to avoid loss as a result of transferring. I understand that the draft directive will deal with that and will lay down exactly what transfers may be available to travellers.
That seems to be a sensible road on which to proceed. There again I suggest that this will give the tour operators a certain amont of anxiety, with a number of the other suggestions in the draft directive. There is no doubt that all tour operators can comply with anything with which they are required to comply, but at the end of the day it is the cost of producing a product for the traveller which covers all these elements. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned surcharges. I should also be interested to hear the remarks of other noble Lords on the subject of surcharges.
Surcharges have had a lot of publicity over the years. There is no doubt that there has been quite a lot of abuse of surcharges. There was a lot of abuse of surcharges over a particular period when there were large fluctuations in the price of aviation fuel. A number of operators took advantage of that and over-compensated themselves for these differences. Any way in which this can be targeted and dealt with in the long run will be to the benefit of everybody. It will harmonise and balance the relationship between the traveller and the operator, which after all is the long-term aim of this draft directive.
The one aspect which bothers most travellers and which would bother me if I were to go on one of those package tours to a sunny climate where you stay in a hotel for 10 days and you fly out in the middle of the night from Gatwick— is what care has been taken by
1078
the tour operators in his selection first of the airline or the charter company which handles the particular tour. One wonders how much care and attention have been given, and expense incurred. The more attention he pays to this, the more his expenses will go up, but it is important that he pays attention to the quality of the accommodation and to the quality of any other services included in that package.
Another important matter mentioned in the report—I cannot remember precisely where—and which has bothered me before is that at the moment protection is not offered to all those who appear on the booking form. I think protection is only offered to the proposer; the main name on the booking form. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister may be able to help me over this because I think at present there is a problem here. Often on a package tour there is a group and not all the members of that group who have to appear on that form are covered in the same way as the first name on that proposal; but I may be wrong about that. I should be grateful for the noble Lord's guidance.
To conclude, we welcome this. We think that maybe it smacks of being over-bureaucratic. However, anything that will help the consumer to have travel at the right price and of the right quality and to give him little disappointment will be welcome, and if we can increase the ratio from 85 per cent. to 95 per cent. that would be marvellous. Clearly it is this kind of result that is in the minds of those who have drafted this directive, and in principle we welcome it. I shall be most interested to hear what other noble Lords have to say, and in particular what the Minister has to say when he winds up.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for taking the trouble to explain this report so fully. I felt most hesitant about putting down my name for this debate, because it has to be said that I was totally unaware of the existence of the report until three days ago and I have not really had the chance to study it nearly as thoroughly as I should have liked, particularly as the important debate on southern Africa yesterday, in which I participated, necessitaed a great deal of preparation.
However, two factors prompted me to intervene. First of all, I do not feel that consumer protection for British package travellers is fundamentally any of the European Commission's business. It is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament to decide. Realistically, as opposed to theoretically, it has nothing to do with facilitating the 1992 single market. I doubt whether in practice one-twentieth of 1 per cent. of British holidaymakers would travel to the Continent to start their package holidays there, especially as ours are the cheapest in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said.
I know that the Commission cites Article 100 in justification of its action. But this seems to me to be stretching Article 100 to its limits. Indeed, it is a perfect example of the obsessive harmonisation about which Professor Ralf Dahrendorf complained approximately 15 years ago. Incidentally, I note that

1079
Professor Treitel makes some critical comments on the harmonisation aspect on page 150 of the report. Monsieur Jacques Delors is doubtless delighted with this further example of the Commission's tentacles encroaching upon national sovereignty, but I do not think that your Lordships should be, and I am sure that the British people are not.
And there are practical objections as well as objections of principle. The pioneering, buccaneering, enterprising individual is essentially an Anglo-Saxon figure: I use the term "Anglo-Saxon" in its broadest sense. Since late Victorian times he has been found mainly in English-speaking countries other than our own. But to their credit this Government have tried to revive the "Stand on your own feet" principle, but it is a tender plant and there are plenty of people—not all of them in one quarter of the political spectrum—who would be only too happy to uproot it. They would rather it were supplanted by the much more collectivist Continental ethos, with its roots in Bismarckian welfarism on the one hand and Roman Catholic paternalism on the other. The legacy of Napoleonic bureaucracy may also enter into the picture.
One has only to look at the way in which contested takeover bids are regarded with horror on the Continent, and the way in which German banks—heavily involved in industry as they are; quite unlike British banks in that respect—are practically an arm of the state.
If this excessive caution, paternalism and coolness towards individualism and risk-taking had been allowed to cramp the style of the British travel trade 30 years ago, I doubt whether we would have the cheapest package holidays in Europe today, and the greatest variety—with customers able to opt for anything between the Benidorms and Ibizas of this world and the exotic, adventurous, long distance destinations like Nepal, Madagascar, Lombok or the Galapagos Islands, to name but a few.
When strict liability is imposed on manufactured goods it discourages innovation, as many noble Lords pointed out when we were discussing that topic. When strict liability is imposed upon services such as the travel trade, the same disadvantages start to manifest themselves.
The second reason for my intervention is that my work is such that my wife and I take three or four short holidays every year outside Britain rather than one or two longer ones. Over the past 25 years my family and I have had considerable experience of package holidays. Sometimes we have used the flight only and thrown away the hotel voucher. This was mainly in the days before bucket shops, which enable one to buy a heavily discounted ticket. Sometimes we have used the package hotel for the first and last nights and struck off on our own for the rest of the time. More often than not we have stayed in the hotel for an entire week. It is true that occasionally the allegedly heated swimming pool is coated with a thin film of ice or the mattresses on the beds are positively concave, but generally there are no major problems. By and large you get what you pay for.
If things do go wrong—if one of our more loutish countrymen should pour a litre of lager over your
1080
head while you are sitting by the swimming pool, or jam the swimming pool filter with superglue—how could the tour operator possibly have prevented it? That is why I agree strongly with the committee's recommendations in paragraphs 65 and 66 that strict liability be strictly limited.
As one witness points out on page 142, all-embracing strict liability as recommended by the Commission,
"means that customers will be uniquely protected from the vagaries of life while on holiday, in a way that no one is protected from the identical vagaries in their ordinary day to day life: it appears to militate against any idea that travel might be an adventure, or that part of the point of going to other countries is to experience cultures and standards which may not be the same as at home".
Apart from that, the committee and several witnesses draw attention to the absurdity of a situation—this has already been mentioned—in
which two passengers would be sitting side by side on a jumbo jet, one of whose family would be limited to Warsaw Convention levels of compensation in the event of a crash, while the family of the other could receive ten times as much if the tour operator were subject to strict liability on the flight element of the package.
There is another snag: the problems of assembling the evidence needed to prove that you have a valid claim against your tour operator in the event of things going wrong. Most of the packages that I use now are fly-drive ones, generally for a long weekend in France rather than a full week elsewhere. Normally the car provided is fine: sometimes you are lucky enough to get upgraded to a larger car at no extra cost. Occasionally you are given a car in bad condition, sometimes shockingly bad condition, as was the case with the Renault 5 supplied to me by Budget Rent-a-Car at Satolas Airport outside Lyons two and a half years ago. It would scarcely climb a 1-in-10 hill, and there are plenty of 1-in-10 hills in the Ard¹che.
Given that one does not want to waste at least half a day out of one's allotted three days' holiday in trying to find an impartial adjudicator to examine the car, there is nothing realistically that one can do. It is your word against the company's The theoretical strict liability protection is in practice mythical.
I am a little uneasy about recommendation 65(ii) that operators' strict liability should apply to all hotel accommodation the world over. We do not want to discourage operators from offering tours to Albania, Tibet or Bolivia. Provided that it would be a valid defence to warn customers in the brochure that accommodation may be both unreliable and uncomfortable, I suppose that the recommendation is just acceptable.
On the question of surcharges, I broadly agree with paragraph 63 of the report, but I cannot quite make out whether operators would be required to limit rises to the precise increases in the fuel or currency costs, as one would hope. As the Consumers' Association points out on page 11 of the minutes of evidence:
"Surcharges are out of proportion to the actual increase in costs".
In some cases they appear to be disgracefully out of proportion, on the evidence given.

1081
I agree with paragraph 61 regarding the transfer of bookings. The Commission has obviously forgotten that under IATA regulations one cannot transfer an Apex ticket. Thus one could not possibly transfer any holiday that involved a scheduled flight which was an Apex one, and most fall into that category.
The most important proposals, I think, are those relating to the quality and quantity of information to be found in the brochure put out by tour operators. In the "stand on your own feet" society that the Government are trying to encourage, it is surely right that customers should he able to opt for, let us say, very cheap holidays with pot-luck accommodation or adventurous holidays entailing a certain amount of discomfort and risk—all this provided that they are given the maximum amount of information beforehand to enable them to decide whether it is worth it.
If the holiday in question is not recommended for children under 12 or people over 70, the brochure should spell this out precisely. For more conventional holidays, the average air and sea water temperature for each month at the resort in question should be included in the brochure. I once saw a brochure that recommended Bermuda as the ideal destination for getting a winter suntan. This was a disgracefully misleading claim. The temperature in Bermuda in midwinter is scarcely higher than that in the Channel Islands.
I agree with the Commission rather than the committee that the addresses of the hotels used by the operator should he given. In this way, an intending traveller with any gumption would be able to ring up the national tourist office of the country that he proposed to visit and ask for the town plan of the resort to which he was going, from which he would be able to work out whether the hotel recommended was sited next to a beach or park on the one hand or to a sewage treatment plant or motorway flyover on the other.
Finally, I do not think that it is a matter for legislation—it would be difficult to legislate for—but it is irresponsible for tour operators and their representatives not to warn the more thoughtless and unsophisticated of their clients against offending the local people by going topless, or wearing provocative T-shirts or brief shorts in Moslem countries—or, for that matter, in many Christian, Hindu or Buddhist countries. Not only is it ill-mannered and insensitive; it can also be dangerous for the person concerned.
As I said at the outset, I do not think that this matter is strictly any business of the EC. But on the evidence provided in the report, I believe that there is a case for some modest unilateral extension of consumer protection in a manner that takes into account British habits, preferences and conditions.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, noble Lords will understand if I do not completely follow all the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I should like to congratulate and thank my noble friend Lord Broxbourne for his introduction to an extremely important report—important in that it
1082
affects millions of people rather than for its substance. There is particular pleasure in thanking my noble friend who was a distinguished and eloquent chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament where I have followed modestly in his footsteps.
I declare a moral interest in the draft directive. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has referred to a letter I wrote to the Financial Times relating events which happened to me. I realise that noble Lords may not lead the same kind of life. I went with my family on what was our first and, I believe, will be our last package holiday to Greece. The plane was due to leave at 8 a.m. We were not told what time it would leave but eventually it left at 8 p.m. Instead of arriving at 4 p.m., enabling us to stay in a hotel of which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would approve because it was extremely comfortable, we arrived at 5.15 a.m. We had been driven in a taxi by a Cretan for three and a half hours. Almost 24 hours of the holiday had been lost.
I asked not only on my behalf but on behalf of many hundreds of people who were affected, what kind of compensation we would receive. Noble Lords may be surprised to hear that I was told, "You might get a free meal". Surely that is unacceptable to those who save all year and for whom a holiday is a major part of their annual expenditure.
I should like to pay tribute to the many thousands of people who were sitting at Gatwick Airport for 25, 27 and 29 hours. They were patient, courteous and always good humoured. I hope not to sound too Anglophile but I believe that it showed the British at their best. It was not an agreeable experience for anyone, particularly those with children. That situation continued through August.
I am appalled because I have read in the press that Gatwick Airport is making arrangements with hotels and restaurants to deal with similar problems next August. The tour operators have not taken on board the responsibility they have for their consumers. It is extraordinary that because one buys a package tour one is considered to be second class. One is paying money to travel on a plane which leaves at a certain time in order to arrive at a certain place. That is an ordinary part of the law of contract on which my noble friend Lord Broxbourne is an expert. It is unreasonable that travellers can pay a sum of money and be treated in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, rightly pointed out the fact that 85 per cent. of people who buy package tours are satisfied. I accept that and also the fact we have excellent tour operators. However, 15 per cent. of 12 million people is a large number. I have made the calculation on the back of an envelope: the figure is almost 2 million dissatisfied customers. That is an awful lot of people who are dissatisfied with their package tours.
In the light of the diversity of legislation which exists throughout the Community and the kinds of self-regulation or special contract law in different countries, I believe that there should be ground rules which give people some rights against the person with whom they make the contract. That should apply to people whenever they buy their tickets for a package tour and wherever they are going.

1083
Questions have been asked about how the tour operator protects himself or herself against a hotel which does not come up to scratch. The traveller makes the contract with the tour operator who has the right of breach of contract against the person with whom he has made the contract. I believe that to be the simple answer and the basis of the argument used in the draft directive.
I should like to deal with the legal base. I understand the fact that noble Lords prefer Article 100 because it is unanimous. Although it uses the horrible word "harmonisation" instead of the word "approximation" which appears in Article 100 and which I believe to be more suitable, the Commission has proposed Article 100A. We on the Legal Affairs Committee, and I suspect those in the Parliament, will strongly support that base. As of today it has a strong point in its favour. Under Article 100A there is a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers. And the Council of Ministers must listen and read the amendments of the European Parliament.
There are many issues in the directive which noble Lords do not like. Nor do we, who will be tabling amendments from both the Legal Affairs Committee and the committee which is dealing with the subject. The rapporteur is Dr. Caroline Jackson who is English. No doubt some if not all the amendments will be adopted in plenary. The Council of Ministers must listen to the amendments and give an answer under the co-operation procedure. Thereby we shall have a chance at Second Reading to have jusification of why amendments have not been accepted.
Noble Lords have provided us with a most valuable report, and we are having an equally valuable debate. Everything which is said in this House will be taken into account by the European Parliament. I hope that at the end of the day noble Lords will consider that the argument in favour of Article 100A, and the benefit of their wisdom and advice, will not be wasted.
I should like to spend a few minutes considering some of the details of the draft directive because they are important. I hope that my noble friend Lord Broxbourne will take up this issue. In Article 2 there is a lack of clarity in defining what a package tour consists of and who are the operators. Are they only tour operators and agencies registered in the European Community? That is not made clear; I believe that it should be. Is it clear that package tours cover anywhere in the world? I believe that they should. The person making the contract within the European Community will he responsible for the success or failure of the package to wherever it may be. I believe that those issues should be clearly stated in the draft directive.
Similarly, it should be clearly stated whether the directive covers package holidays or package travel as a whole including business travel. It is no use saying that one will be travelling in a plane with only English people. There may be a single European market by the end of 1992, so whether one likes it or not one will not always find oneself sitting next to Englishmen in the coming years, particularly if one travels on business. For example, I flew to Strasbourg on Monday morning this week, but I had to fly back
1084
from Frankfurt in order to be here tonight. Therefore we do not move in a cocoon around the world; we travel from place to place. I sat next to an American and two seats away from a person who had been to Russia. We must accept the fact that for many people travel is part of daily life. They must be protected just as much as people who buy holidays in Spain.
We on the Legal Affairs Committee are concerned about the way in which contracts have been concluded with tour operators, particularly the small print on the back of the ticket which sets out exclusions whereby the operator claims no liability. We believe that the brochure should include a specimen form of the contract with all the major items to be concluded. In that way people would know what they are buying. I believe that to be a useful proposal. It is a proposal which we have made as our opinion but it has not yet come before the plenary session of the European Parliament. It is merely our proposal.
The other aspect touched upon by most noble Lords concerns surcharges. Almost everyone who bought a package tour this year was charged between £10 and £14 extra for fuel. It is not very difficult reading the press to discover that fuel has gone down in the past two years or so, but one never sees a reduction in the price of the package. That is understandable. One makes a contract at a price, but that should stick. It should not suddenly be added to so that five or six people pay between £10 and £14 extra. I do not wish to use myself as an example but it helps to show how people who are perhaps not in such a fortunate position can suddenly find in the middle of August or just before going on holiday that they have another £50 to pay in surcharge. In our committee there is a division as to whether or not we should support the idea of a surcharge at all.
The Legal Affairs Committee proposed that the price must rise by more than five per cent. before a surcharge could be imposed. That relates to the three conditions of Article 4 of the draft directive which deals with airport charges, currency rates and fuel. We suggested that five per cent. would be a reasonable amount. It is quite clear that there may be circumstances where it would be totally unjust to expect a tour operator to bear the whole cost in the case of a major change.
I should like to mention insurance. I am surprised by the argument that if one is in a plane one might be covered by a different form of insurance to the person sitting in the next seat. I have never sat next to anyone who does not have a different insurance to me. Of course, we are all covered by the Warsaw Convention. However, I hardly need tell your Lordships that if one buys one's ticket through Access there is an automatic £55,000 insurance—which I have not told my husband.
Nevertheless, that is a fact of life. There is no way in which we can all sit in an aeroplane and be covered by exactly the same conditions of insurance. Whether or not the other arguments are valid, that is totally untenable.
As regards cost, France has had strict legislation since 1982 that tour operators or agents de voyages must have insurance. It apparently works out at 22½pence per package per head. I have seen a recent

1085
figure by ABTA. When ABTA was saying how expensive it would be, it had not really inquired. I asked several insurance companies in the City, and at that stage ABTA had not inquired what kind of premiums would he necessary. Further, there is no stipulation as to the liability required—total, strict or limited. Even for limited liability, anyone sitting next to me at Gatwick would have gladly paid £5, £15, or more, to know that they would be compensated for the disadvantages and distress they were suffering. It does not take a great mathematician to realise that if one does not pay £10 in surcharge, one would be quite willing to pay £10 for insurance. I do not believe that such insurance would ruin the pockets of many people.
Above all, it gives a sense of responsibility to tour operators who then know that they are obliged to observe the contract, knowing full well that their clients will be protected by insurance if something goes wrong. That is perfectly right and proper. They can take action against the offending hotel, coach operator or whatever in another member state of the Community, or, indeed, outside the Community.
I do not wish to take up the time of your Lordships' House with many other important and legal points. The principle is clear; namely, to protect travellers— not only British travellers. Quite a number of foreigners come to Britain. They deserve to be protected against some of the hotels they visit. They will know that they are protected and that they can claim. I was going to use the example of AIDS, but perhaps I should not. They are protected should they receive some kind of treatment, or food, which is not acceptable.
Therefore, for the benefit of consumers as a whole, I warmly welcome the draft directive. I am glad to see that the Office of Fair Trading also considers it necessary. That is a totally independent body without any political overtones. There is no question of it being European or non-European. I read in the report that it recognises and supports the need for this. I believe that we are all agreed that there are certain elements which need to be looked at more closely. Article 100A gives a chance to change the draft directive more radically than if one sticks to Article 100.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she could tell me what the 22½ pence in France covers by comparison to what could be covered by £6, £7 or £10 here. Are we comparing like with like? The report says that it was impossible to ascertain from France precisely what the 22½p. covered?
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is correct. Nobody quite knows what the 22½ pence covers. That was the figure given by the French tour operators. Even if that is low and the ABTA figure looks high, I assure your Lordships that the people with whom I travelled at Gatwick would be glad to pay £10, particularly if not paying a surcharge. However, I am afraid that I cannot specifically answer the noble Lord's question.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, it is a joy to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and I shall be glad to return to some of the points she made later.
First, I should like to say how glad I was that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, was proposing this Motion, not only because of his legal knowledge but from a personal point of view. Some 35 years ago in another place when he was chairman of the 1922 Committee the noble Lord was good enough to help me in sponsoring a Bill for consumers which we eventually managed to carry forward into an Act. We should never have done that without his support. Therefore, I felt that it was right that someone who cared so much for consumers should move the Motion today and I should like to thank him for what he has said.
I should like to thank the Select Committee as a whole for its report. I thought it was very good and most of us have learnt a great deal from it. I certainly did. I do not believe that it is only we in Parliament who will be thankful, but it will be the millions of people who use package holidays and package holiday facilities year in and year out. I think it would be right if I were to express appreciation to the many organisations which put in a lot of work on this subject and which have sent information. I specifically include the National Consumer Council. the Consumers in the European Community Group, the Consumers' Association and the Office of Fair Trading. I hope that each will recognise its contribution and my appreciation.
I believe that we all feel, and most of us have said, that this report could not be more timely following the dreadful summer which we experienced in 1988. I believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—and we have often said this in this House—that the charter industry serves this country well. However, there is considerable variation across the package holiday market. In a survey carried out in 1987 on a European level—and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned the cheapness of some of our tours—UK operators in Europe had the cheapest in three out of four packages. The differential between the dearest and the cheapest price for the same package was 40 per cent. in two thirds of the sample, while in four cases it exceeded 80 per cent. I believe that we should pay tribute to the charter industry for its achievements.
It seems to me that package travel, package holidays and package tours have brought inestimable value and pleasure to people who never thought in their lifetime that it would be possible to travel so far afield. However, having tasted that pleasure, the traveller is not content to have such happenings as those of last summer ruin something so enjoyable.
Furthermore, I believe that today holiday-makers are not prepared to put up with delays, crowded airports and what seems to them to be inefficient services. They pay hard earned money. It is my firm belief that they are perfectly prepared to pay more of their hard earned money to see matters put right. I hope that that lesson has gone home. Travellers are not willing for those conditions to continue. That is the main reason why I welcome this report from the

1087
Select Committee and the draft directive from the Commission. If we can get over to the powers-that-be in this country and elsewhere that travellers are determined to have this put right we shall have achieved something.
I was greatly cheered by the strong support from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who has had such vast experience in the European Market. I for one am glad that she is there and the Legal Committee is lucky to have her. We shall look to good results from that.
Let us assume that everyone—and I am sure it is true—wants to put this matter right. Where do we start? I start simply with the consumers, the travellers. What do they want? What do we all want when we go on holiday? I have listed three points: first, no change of holiday after booking and no change in arrangements entered into; secondly, no unforeseen extra charges, and I emphasise the word "unforeseen"; thirdly, brochures should come up to expectations. As Article 3 stipulates,
"descriptive matter must be legible, understandable and accurate".
Each of us will have our own list but taking the three I have chosen, what of the first concerning no change of holiday after booking and no change of arrangements entered into? I start with a statistic: 22 per cent. of people had their holiday changed after it was booked and one half of those changes were made after the final payment or during the holiday. That was in 1986. In paragraph 51 the Select Committee states:
"There is also a strong public policy argument that the package traveller needs special protection because among consumers he is unusually vulnerable. He has paid all his money in advance, he cannot easily take his custom elsewhere or replace a spoilt holiday and he has in practice no realistic remedy against airline delays or foreign hotel owners".
Furthermore, the Select Committee goes on to state its agreement with the Commission that there are good consumer reasons for Community legislation to establish common rules which in some states would lead to greater protection of package travellers. I shall come back to that at the end of my remarks, but I am cheered that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, seem to think that that is the case.
Unfortunately, the draft directive allows the organiser to cancel the package for whatever cause. In addition, the organiser may cancel the travel in two cases without compensation to the consumer for non-fulfilment of the contract. The first case is the cancellation on the ground that the number of persons is less than the minimum number specified. The second case is cancellation for reasons of force majeure, excluding however overbooking. The House knows my views on overbooking and I am glad that the Select Committee recognises this as an increasing phenomenon.
Force majeure needs a better legal brain than mine to interpret, but even I know that its interpretation is not the same throughout the Community. I leave that problem to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and the Legal Committee with the suggestion that we laymen in the legal world study carefully page 119 in the Select Committee report.
1088
I now come to my second point concerning no unforeseen extra charges. I believe that the present practice of surcharges is unacceptable. Surely the simplest and fairest solution is to lay down that the price cannot be changed once the full price has been paid by the consumer; in other words, the price at the time of booking should be the final price. On 23rd May 1988 the Minister for Consumer Affairs stated that ABTA had proposed a solution which would have the effect of removing the need for up to 90 per cent. of surcharges. In common with the rest of your Lordships I have tried to find out what people who really know the subject think of this. I suggest that it is the considered opinion of researchers on this subject that surcharges are out of proportion to the actual increase in costs, that they are costly to collect, that they are not properly explained and that the calculation of surcharges is a matter of concern. I am very glad—and 1 keep coming back to the Select Committee because we have a friend there—that this matter is to be looked into.
That is a strong indictment made by the researchers. I accept it. I welcome the proposal that the Office of Fair Trading should monitor 20 major tour operators to ensure that surcharges are not abused. The efforts of the Commission on this practice are welcomed but they are considered to be insufficient. However, I know that the Select Committee accepts that surcharging to reflect fuel cost increases and currency fluctuations is inescapable. I assume from that—and I look at the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne—that when any currency fluctuation favours the cost to the traveller the charges would then be reduced, meaning that travellers would get a refund rather than a surcharge.
I come now to the last of my three points—brochures. The Office of Fair Trading, in its publication of July 1988, said that,
"Probably the most important face presented by the industry is brochures. The tour operators' code requires them to be clear, accurate and comprehensive".
Additionally, it said that holiday brochures, on balance, tended to receive good ratings.
Holiday brochures cost a lot of money to prepare. It seems a pity to spoil them by not getting all the facts right. Evidence to the Select Committee said that consumers complained, for example, that on occasion the illustrations of the resort or of the hotels led them to be misled about what would be provided—perhaps a statement that a hotel was near a beach when, although it was, there was a major roadway between the hotel and the beach so that it was not suitable for children—or perhaps that the picture of the building described in the brochure was only one of the buildings under construction when the brochure was put together.
With others I welcome the obligation on member states to ensure that information in brochures and contracts is legible, accurate and understandable; but I would support also a suggestion that there should be a requirement that the information in the brochure is consistent with that in the contract. I hope that the Select Committee, perhaps prodded by the Legal Committee, will include that point in its recommendations.

1089
I should like to take up one further detail. In paragraph 59 the Select Committee states,
"that it seems to be unnecessary to require the full address of a hotel or other accommodation to be inserted in a brochure, so long as particulars adequate for identification are included".
I do not agree. I believe that it would be of great value to consumers to have this information. I am convinced that it would build up confidence. Perhaps the Select Committee will feel able to consider that point again.
That concludes my three points and I now come to my conclusion. This can be summed up by the first conclusion reached by the Select Committee on page 24:
"Although the package travel industry has been very successful, consumers now want and are ready to pay for a better service. The package traveller is economically vulnerable and needs greater legal protection. There is a good case for Community legislation".
Consumers in the European Community Group (CECG) does not believe that making travel companies responsible for essential measures to protect their clients will automatically lead to substantial price increases. It seems to me very difficult to get any accurate figures on this, and that has already been referred to. The group understands that the Commission's discussions with European insurers suggests that the cost of insuring for liability under the directive would be minimal. In France, where there is already strict liability for package tours, as your Lordships probably know, a 1985 estimate suggested that this added an extra 2.32 French francs or 22 pence to the cost per person.
The National Consumer Council states that the directive envisages a European-wide travel holiday market. If UK consumers are to purchase holidays from French, German or Spanish tour companies, the National Consumer Council does not think it is desirable or realistic to expect them to pursue their grievances with a tour operator in another country. As your Lordships will know, most UK consumers believe that the travel company is responsible when things go wrong, but a tour operator may disclaim strict liability in many instances. Yet tour operators are in a far stronger position than the individual holiday-maker to recover damages from foreign hotels or transport carriers since they can withdraw from future bookings.
If out of this draft directive, the efforts of our Select Committee and the detailed work done by many organisations we succeed in developing policies to promote tourism within the Community, and if we do that by 1992, I for one shall be more than satisfied.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who is to wind up for that side of the House, and my noble friend the Minister; and excepting my noble friend Lord Broxbourne, who has introduced this debate in such a gentle way, at the end of the general list of speakers it is difficult to find some new aspect. I do not have a new aspect. I wish to underline one or two matters.
I am sure that we are all particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Elles for her explanation why the Community directive is as it is; namely, the differences between Article 100 and 100A. I believe
1090
that is helpful. It is a little contrary to what the Select Committee suggest in their report. I believe this to be a very valuable point that we need to keep in the forefront of our minds.
My younger son wrote a thesis at university some years ago on the package holiday industry. I recall him saying that it will bring a dramatic change to the way of life of millions of people. It is not that the package holiday is cheap. I hope that the noble Lord Graham will forgive me because he, among others, spoke about the cheapness. It is perhaps less expensive than other ways of travelling about. I would not use the term package tour but call it an all-in-tour where travel, accommodation and food and some element of entertainment is included. Sadly, nothing in this world is cheap.
The package holiday business has raised the expectations of people—to a degree that the tour operators find difficult to meet. I believe that is where many people go wrong. It is contained in the evidence. I believe it was Miss Cassin who spoke about dreams and nightmares. In December, as the new glossy brochures drop through the letterbox inviting one to go here and there, dreams are created. Most of them are fulfilled. There are some nightmares; and various statistics have been put about. Out of some 20 million users of the service, some 11 per cent. give rise to complaint which means conversely that some 89 per cent. do not complain. The fact that there are no grounds for complaint for the 89 per cent. is immaterial since the numbers continue to go up. That is not a bad record for the industry.
Where and how are the complaints registered and against whom? There are difficulties in this regard to which the report draws attention. I believe that most complaints are against the tour operator. But at the same time I believe that it is the retailer who has a duty and not just to sell a ticket out of a catalogue. A retailer has a duty to make his best endeavours in order to determine what it is that the client is trying to buy. He should give advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, referred to the hotel near the sea. That is fine for an adult; but is not so good for a family with three small children, a perambulator and two big baskets. What is it that the client is expecting to buy, and what advice should be given? What should the expectation be? If that can be better satisfied, then I believe that the number of complaints may well decrease.
A number of your Lordships have referred to the brochure. I believe that most are written in an enthusiastic, glossy style with an element of poetic licence. However, if one is looking for an adventure holiday in some far-flung corner of what used to be called the Empire, it may say that travellers should expect that standards of hygiene are not those normally associated with a European resort. That is perfectly fair and reasonable. The brochure should put quite clearly the down side of the picture. I believe that there is a greater responsibiility on the tour operator in the description of the product than we have seen in recent years. I believe that would remove a number of areas of complaint.
I believe that tour operators, particularly in the more popular areas where there are vast numbers of

1091
people moving about, should have a greater and more responsible representation in the field so that a number of difficulties and problems that give rise to complaint when the traveller returns home can be dealt with on the spot. I believe they are called couriers, but I call them representatives in the field. They should have a discretion to settle on the spot the less important complaints. In my view there is a retailer responsibility.
I am broadly in favour of the directive. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that this is an incursion into our sovereignty. The holiday travel business is worldwide and we are all part of it. As responsible members of the Community, it is reasonable that we should have a common purpose in this lucrative and important business. Perhaps I may return to a point raised by my noble friend Lady Elles; namely, compensation for delay. I do not wish to go into the matter in great detail, but I suggest that the tour operator should have strict and unlimited liability in terms of the hotel, accommodation and associated services. Whether they should have some liability as regards travel, I slightly dispute. I do not believe that it is entirely necessary. I believe that it is for other companies and institutions to provide compensation. The vagaries of air travel, whether they are due to weather, mechanical or even political reasons, should not necessarily give rise to compensation.
I am always a little worried that people turn to the compensation clause in the contract as the first means of getting rid of their chagrin, disappointment and dismay. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, referred to changes made by the operator giving rise to compensation. The quid pro quo must apply that, on wise reflection or because of unscheduled expense arising in a household, the consumer decides to make the change. Compensation to the seller of the product should follow. So the changes are not entirely one sided. The noble Baroness would probably agree that there is a responsibility.
As I listened to the debate I wondered whether I might quote the words—and my noble friend Lord Broxbourne will in the kindest way correct me if indeed correction I need—
"It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive".
I wonder whether those might not be watchwords for some of those who look through the catalogues and become frightfully excited during the winter months at the thought of these golden beaches in some foreign field seven or eight months hence, or glance at the catalogues during the summer and look for the snow some five months hence.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that liability for delay can depend on the cause of the delay. Delay could be caused by a strike of traffic controllers in one country or another so that it would be impossible for a flight to take off. But where delay is due to the inefficiency of the carrier, that is another matter. It is not strictly correct to say that there should be no compensation for delay if there is a good reason for the failure of the operator to fulfil his contract. Does my noble friend agree that we should leave this matter open for discussion?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I concur with what my noble friend says. I hope I did not give the impression that there should be no compensation. I was suggesting that the compensation might come from a different area. No one can guarantee at all times that X or Y will happen. Certain failures may be compensatable; others most certainly would not be.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for introducing the Select Committee's report. We on these Benches are grateful to him for his reference to Lord Silkin of Dulwich who died recently. He is missed both on these Benches and generally in your Lordships' House.
We have a number of comments on the Select Committee's conclusions, some of which the committee may not find wholly palatable. Our first is that this is not a consumer protection directive. It is a directive designed to implement in part the internal market of 1992. There are two parts to the directive, as the preamble quite clearly states in the draft. The first requires that consumers should be protected. The other requires that tour operators should have what is known as a level playing field in which to compete throughout the Community when the internal market comes about. That is an important point. It would be quite absurd if we argued for a level playing field on the sale of insurance services throughout the Community and did not also argue for a level playing field in the sale of tourist services throughout the same Community. There is no distinction between a life assurance salesman who may go to Stuttgart or to Glasgow after 1992 when the appropriate directive has been implemented and the tour operator who will be entitled to sell tours right across the same jurisdiction.
It astonishes me that ABTA is so much on the defensive. I should have thought that this is a great opportunity for the tour operators of the United Kingdom, which we all admit are the most efficient, the most clever and the most inventive in Europe. It astonishes me that they do not regard this directive, which establishes the level playing field, as being an enormous opportunity for them to go out and get the market.
I note that the Government have taken a view on strict liability even before the Minister has risen to speak. Mr. John Lee, an Under-Secretary at the Department of Employment, told the meeting of tourism ministers in Brussels yesterday that:
"It would be unfair to place the burden of responsibility for every holiday hiccough on companies organising millions of package trips each year".
It looks as though the Government have taken a view on strict liability even before your Lordships' debate. I find that rather regrettable.
I should like to deal with the status of the directive. Does it come under Article 100 or Article 100A? I regard this not as a consumer protection measure—if it is a consumer protection measure the Government should have introduced it years ago—but as a measure to establish a level playing field across

1093
Europe in the Internal market. It therefore comes under Article 100A. I disagree with the conclusions of the Select Commmittee on that point. I was impressed by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that, from our point of view, Article 100A is better than Article 100. The European Parliament's legal committee will have the right to make amendments and to hear why the Commission and the Council of Ministers disapprove of amendments. And so there will be an interchange of views which will probably be to our advantage. Not only is the Select Committee wrong in its conclusion that this draft directive should come under Article 100, but it is to our advantage that it comes under where I think it should come under, Article 100A.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his characteristic courtesy. Does he recall that in my opening remarks I said that the principle has to be applied only to use the correct article as the legal base. But I also said that although the principle is there, in practice we would not be disadvantaged.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I recognise that that is what he said. Nevertheless the report came down fairly firmly on one side rather than the other. From this Dispatch Box I wish to make the point that we disagree with the conclusion of the Select Committee.
Assuming that the directive is in the end approved by the Council of Ministers, how do we translate it into United Kingdom law? Noble Lords have not touched on this point directly although the report alluded to it. There are three essential ways of doing this. The first is to deal with it in specific terms of contract giving rise to civil actions by aggrieved persons. This is broadly the system we have at the moment. The second is by making it a criminal offence to violate certain specific provisions of the directive. The third is a licensing system, which the committee specifically rejected, similar to the CAA licensing system which more or less duplicates, but on a statutory basis, the present ABTA code of practice and licensing system.
I do not believe that the specific terms of contract arrangement would work. The directive could not properly be implemented simply by making certain grounds for contractual complaint in the civil courts. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I had long discussions during the passage of the Consumer Protection Bill through your Lordships' House and I think that the problems involved in relying upon civic procedure for some of the remedies became apparent to both of us, even though we approached the matter from slightly different angles.
So we would favour some sort of extension of the CAA licensing system—the type which the committee specifically rejected. The Financial Services Act has a licensing arrangement. I use the world "licensing" in the broadest sense of the word. But there is a body, or bodies, which authorise people to do certain things and if they do not do those things then they are in a lot of trouble and can be not only as in the ABTA case thrown out of the association but in many cases they can be taken to court. I think
1094
that something along those lines would be the kind of arrangement which we would favour.
I come now to the scope of the directive. There is the problem of whether the directive should only comprise packages where there is an element of travel. The committee focused on that point and said that there should be such an element of travel involved. I think that that is probably true if we are talking in a purely UK context. But if you go and live, as I have done, in Europe—the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, knows this much better than I do—you can go on a skiing weekend from Stuttgart to Davos; your club will hire the bus in which you go but you will have the package in the hotels. Whereas for us, we have to travel outside to go, as it were, anywhere other than to Whipsnade Zoo, or wherever; but when we come to Europe and we must consider this as a European directive, because that is what we are talking about—there are many occasions on which Germans, French and Italians do not regard it as psychologically essential to have both travel and hotels in the same package. You can have one or the other or the other and one. So I think that we are looking at it from the point of view of the United Kingdom context a bit too much. I hope that we would not argue that point wholly from the British point of view but would understand that our Continental friends have slightly different arrangements.
On the specific points in the draft directive, I take note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, have said about travel brochures. On the whole I agree with what they say. There is of course the problem of the misleading price indication—Part 111 of the Consumer Protection Act—which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord athclyde, will wish to deal with when he comes to talk about the prices quoted in brochures. Although that part of the Act has not yet been implemented because the commencement order has not yet been produced, nevertheless it will when it comes, which I understand will be fairly soon, affect what price is quoted, and on what basis, on the brochure of a package travel. Unless it is quoted as an estimate, which is specifically excluded on the Consumer Protection Act, it will have the characteristic of being a price indication. If it is misleading in any way, I am afraid that it will be a criminal offence to the retailer or organiser who produces the brochure. If the price changes for unaccountable reasons, when the brochure is in front of the person who is buying the tour on that basis, there may be a problem. It may be possible to overcome that problem, and I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord will comment upon that when he comes to wind up.
On travel contracts, I generally agree again with what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said about cancellation. On the other hand, however, I agree with the committee that the problems of ensuring in a directive—which must be translated into law—a right to an alternative (which is Article 4(6)(a)) would run into some very serious problems. I find it in practice very difficult to see how tour operators could, at short notice, be obliged by law in some manner to provide an alternative.

1095
As regards surcharges, I wholly agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said. In fact I would go further than what she said. I see no reason at all for surcharges based on currency fluctuations or the cost of fuel. Day after day Ministers speak from the Government Front Bench and say that there is no reason to go into the EMS as a full member because everyone can hedge currency risks. We hear that day after day. Presumably tour operators are reasonably financially competent individuals and they can hedge currency risks, particularly short-term currency risks, just as well as anyone else.
So just because the value between sterling and the deutschemark, or sterling and the peseta changes, it does not seem to me to be at all justifiable to say that a surcharge should be in some way condoned. I would say that the financial director of the tour operator ought to be sacked before that happens. Equally, it is perfectly possible to hedge against the cost of fuel. There is a Rotterdam market in aviation gasolene oil and JP4. Any tour operator if he wants to set about it can hedge against these various commercial risks.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment. I understand that there is not a long-term futures market for oil, but I may be wrong.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, no; there is no long-term futures market. But we are not talking about long-term futures; we are talking about holidays which are bought in January and which are taken up in July and August. We are talking about a six-month market. If the noble Lord would like to come along with me I will show him the market in six-nine month futures in these products. Therefore I do not believe that surcharges are on the agenda at all. I think that we ought to be absolutely clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, is right and we ought just to bury that aspect.
The last point that I have on specifics is the question of strict liability. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a very good point that retailers (that is, travel agents) ought at least to be included in some form—I am not quite sure how it could be done, but, assuming the directive comes under Article 100(A), then I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will find some suitable formula. But I think that it is quite wrong that the agent should be free of liability, while the tour operator bears the whole liability.
The point about strict liability has been made by one or two noble Lords. It is not that the tour operator admits guilt in some way if something goes wrong. The argument that he has got something wrong is not the point. The question is, who is best able to fight the case in a foreign jurisdiction. The answer is, the tour operator. That is much better than the individual person who has bought the package. That is why we would support the idea of strict liability as spelt out in the draft directive.
As for insurance, figures have been bandied around this evening about whether the figure is 22p, 2½ francs or £5 or £10, or whatever; I know not. I
1096
daresay that nobody else in the world at the moment knows what the figure would be if there were an instruction legally binding that there should be strict liability. What I do know is that there will be a market, because at a price there will be a market. It may be a price that the purchaser of the tour may not be prepared to pay; that is his problem. There may be a different price. There may be one price for an uninsured holiday; there may be a price for an insured holiday. All kinds of things are perhaps possible. But, anybody who argues that there is no market for insurance is arguing falsely. We would make that point as strongly as we possibly could. If insurance works, then guarantee funds and the other arrangements that were mentioned in the committee's report do not seem to matter too much. If the insurance market is worth anything, it is worth its liabilities. We do not have any strong feelings about whether there should or should not be guarantee funds or funds held in trust.
I want to return to the point that the draft directive is not merely a consumer protection measure. It is designed—the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, agrees with me, I think—to create after 1992 a level playing field for everyone. It will be part of the internal market and will be selling services. Those services happen to be services to consumers wanting to buy a tourist package. It could equally be, as I said, services providing life insurance or anything else. That is why I believe that this is an amazing opportunity for United Kingdom tour operators. I regret that they seem to be defensive about it.
As the noble Baroness said, we saw on our television screens this summer some appalling scenes of holiday-makers stuck for hours, and sometimes days, in airport lounges. I read on the tape that Christmas holiday-makers are about to risk the same fate. Something must be done. Since the Government are obviously not prepared to do anything by themselves, we have to look to the European Community to force us to do something.
Tour operators must accept their responsibilities: strict liability to deliver the package they offer, at the price they offer and on the conditions that they offer. Nothing else is acceptable. If they fail, proper compensation should be provided immediately and without complaint to those whose holidays have been spoilt.
Tour operators and travel agencies will, I have no doubt, be able to insure themselves against their liabilities if—nowadays perhaps it is when— things go wrong. If they do that, as Europe wishes, they will be in a marvellous position to capture the European markets after 1992. A fair deal for the holiday-maker means prosperity for our efficient package travel industry. The chance should not be lost.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that there is only so much air space available in Europe? That is a fact of nature. There is nothing that the European Community or anyone else can do about it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I agree.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I especially enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. In his remarks he spoke of fresh minds. I started to tackle the subject with a fresh mind, but as I learnt more and more about it my mind became slightly clouded. However, the report helped to clear it. I joined other noble Lords in regretting the death of Lord Silkin of Dulwich, who will be much missed in the House.
As for the report itself, I should like to begin by congratulating noble Lords who sat on the subcommittee on producing a very well researched, well balanced and well argued report. The Government have followed the proceedings of the sub-committee closely. The evidence presented to the sub-committee and your Lordships' report were of enormous help to the Government in drawing up a detailed negotiating line on the directive.
Like the sub-committee, the Government have found that they have had to consider carefully the respective interests of the two parties concerned: the consumer and the tour operator. To take the interest of the consumer first—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, will agree—the Government believe he is entitled to expect that the tour operator will provide him with precisely the holiday he booked, not an approximation of it. He is entitled to expect that he will go to the hotel he chose from the brochure, not one up the road. He is entitled to expect that he will pay the holiday price quoted in the brochure, and not be surcharged, unless it is made crystal clear to him in the brochure that surcharges may he made and in what circumstances. He is also entitled to expect that the hotel and other services forming the package are of a reasonable standard.
Noble Lords, and in particular my noble friend Lady Elles, have recounted examples of cases where those reasonable expectations may not have been met. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, will find the comments reassuring even though she and the Government do not see entirely eye to eye on surcharges, subject to which I shall return later.
The consumer's interest does not, however, lie solely in getting the holiday he booked. It lies in getting the holiday he booked at a price he can afford. Here I must join in the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the noble Baroness Lady Burton of Coventry, to the success of the package travel industry in bringing foreign holidays within the reach of ordinary people. About 4 million packages per annum were sold 10 years ago. Today the figure is about 13 million. My noble friend Lord Broxbourne mentioned that people travel to get away from the English. With figures like 13 million, people would find that difficult today.
It is a tremendous achievement and it may not be realised just how cheaply British tour operators sell their product. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that the European consumer body (BEUC) has undertaken surveys which show that holidays provided by UK tour operators are often 30 per cent. or more cheaper than identical holidays provided by Continental operators. In a
1098
typical example (two weeks in Benidorm in July 1988 at the hotel Las Ocas) four UK operators charged between £365 and £392; a Belgian operator £401; two Dutch operators £426 and £471; and three French operators between £470 and £580. In another example, and I shall not give too many., but they show the difference (two weeks in Tunisia in July 1988 at the hotel Les Orangers)—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has been there.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I had a date in Tunisia!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the one UK operator offering the hotel charged £414; eight German operators charged between £472 and £585. I seriously doubt whether those higher prices represent 30 per cent. better quality of service, or 30 per cent. better protection for Continental consumers.
The other interest which must be taken into account is, as I have said, the tour operator's. The tour operator wants to limit or avoid liability for circumstancs outside his control. He is anxious to limit his liability when circumstances such as an air traffic controllers' strike in Greece or Spain, or deliberate overbooking by a Greek of Spanish hotelier, prevent him from fulfilling his contractual obligations to his customers. He will regard it as extremely inequitable if he is held liable for substantial damages for death, personal injury or other loss or damage suffered by his customers as a result of deficiencies in hotel or transport services forming part of the package if he himself exercised all due skill and care in selecting the suppliers concerned. In short, the tour operator does not want to see any provisions from Brussels which will cause him to increase his holiday prices, or to restrict the range of holidays which he offers, if as a result he will sell fewer holidays.
That brings me to what I and other noble Lords believe is the most significant article in the proposed directive, and the most significant of the Select Committee's conclusions. I refer to Article 5, which places strict and unlimited liability on tour operators for any deficiency in the provision of the various elements of the holiday. It not only holds tour operators liable to provide holiday-makers with all the promised elements of the package; it goes much further by imposing liability for death, personal injury, and other loss or damage arising from defects in hotel, transport, or other services forming part of the package, regardless of whether the tour operator was negligent.
The Government agree with the Select Committee that strict liability on the tour operator for performance of all services in the package is neither economically insurable nor right in principle. It is inevitable that the article as drafted would have an adverse effect on the price and range of holidays available. The Government's objective is to ensure that UK holiday-makers continue to enjoy the benefits of cheap package travel to a wide variety of holiday destinations.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Lee, having said today that the Government do not accept that the directive

1099
should place strict and unlimited liability on tour operators. He was not of course at that time contradicting the Select Committee's conclusion, to which I have just referred.
The committee's report goes on to recommend that liability for each element of the package should be separately examined, but that there should be strict liability for defects in hotel premises or services. I have to disappoint some noble Lords by saying that I do not want to comment definitively on this recommendation tonight nor on the more detailed suggestions in the body of the Select Committee's report. It is too early to predict exactly how negotiations will develop, although I shall have something to say on that matter in a moment. The Government's starting point is that tour operators should be contractually liable to provide their customers with precisely the holiday which they book, but that beyond this some formula must be found for defining or limiting liability in a sensible way. Many of our Community partners appear to share our general concern but would like to tackle the offending article in different ways. It remains to be seen what sort of formula might be mutually acceptable, but I am extremely grateful to the Select Committee for their detailed suggestions which remain on the table to inform and assist UK negotiators.
At this stage the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, talked about the insurance industry. I cannot see any reason why insurance cannot be obtained against the possibility of a customer's holiday being spoilt by excessive noise, as he showed by example, or of his suffering an accident in the hotel. This would need to be explored with the insurance industry itself, and I believe that many other noble Lords made a similar point.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also went on to ask, as did the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, whether it is sometimes the position that some travellers on a plane will be covered by the directive and others not. The answer is essentially yes, some passengers will have contracts with the tour operators while others will not. One point which will need to be considered carefully in negotiations is whether it is right that the directive should impose different levels of liabilty in respect of the two classes of passengers. I think that there is a good case for ensuring that these kinds of anomalies are avoided.
I feel that it is appropriate at this point to inform the House about the state of current negotiations although I have been slightly pre-empted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Following an initial reading of the directive at working level, a progress report was made yesterday to the tourism council. The council agreed that in its present form the directive was not acceptable, particularly with regard to the strict and unlimited liability provisions in Article 5. The Commission was asked to look at the present text again and to produce a more acceptable proposal, following consultations with experts and tour operators. Furthermore, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, thinks, the Government
1100
are not against consumer protection for holidaymakers. Far from it.
Perhaps I may go on now to say a word about the proposed treaty base for the directive, Article 100A, which again very many noble Lords mentioned during the course of the evening. The Government agree with the ommittee—but I am afraid not with the noble Lord, Lord Williams—that the main object of the directive is consumer protection, and that any purpose or effect of increasing free movement of services is peripheral and subordinate. We have noted the points which the Committee have made about Article 100A being an inappropriate basis for the directive. We shall pursue these with the Commission and other member states during negotiations in Brussels.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Will the Government pursue it to the High Court? I think that is the ultimate arbiter for the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course at the moment we are only discussing it in negotiations. We shall have to see what comes out of the negotiations in the near future. The Government accept the general tenor of the Committee's recommendations covering Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the directive. It is only on relatively minor points of detail that we disagree. I do not think too much should be made of these as the final text will be subject to much negotiation. Compromises will no doubt have to be made along the way. Nevetheless, it may be of interest if I briefly run through the Government's views on these matters.
On the scope of the directive, the Government agree with the committee that the directive should be limited to packages arranged in the course of the organiser's business and which include an element of travel. We should ideally like to go a little further and limit the directive to packages which comprise travel and accommodation, and in which both services are a significant part of the total. A definition on these lines would embrace all package tour operators in the conventional sense but exclude such domestic package arrangements as coach trips to the zoo which would be caught by the present draft. As the Committee notes in its report, it seems excessive to subject such arrangements to the stringent requirements of the directive itself.
Turning to the proposals on travel brochures and travel contracts, specifically mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Broxbourne and Lord Monson, and the noble Baroness Lady Burton of Coventry, the Government agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the committee that the proposals on brochures and advertising are, broadly speaking, reasonable. We also agree that tour operators should not be required to do more than use their best efforts to transfer bookings where the consumer is unable to travel. We are unconvinced, however, that the proposal for compulsory written contracts is necessary, and we are also unconvinced that the existing wording of the directive is sufficiently flexible to cater for particular trade practices such as "square deal" holidays. We have no criticism of standard contract forms, as the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne,

1101
has advocated; but we question whether it is desirable to make them compulsory in every circumstance, particularly given that the scope of the directive remains unclear at present.
My noble friend Lord Lucas wanted to know about the duty to inform and give advice to customers about a proposed holiday, and that these should be imposed on the travel agent. We do not think it would be reasonable to impose such a duty on the travel agent. He is very often not in a position ',sometimes running an extremely small business) to verify all the facts about the holiday advertised.
On surcharges which I think gave many noble Lords some concern, the Government welcome the committee's conclusion that the proposals in the directive are realistic. On a point of detail, however, we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. We see no unfairness about including in the list of surchargeable cost items dues, taxes or fees such as airport taxes and landing fees. We therefore remain unpersuaded by the Committee's proposal that this line should be excluded.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said that this subject is a matter of some debate within the committees of the European Parliament. It may be helpful if I outline the Government's position in a little detail. The Government recognise that surcharges are highly unpopular and very much welcome the action taken by many British tour operators in announcing no surcharge guarantees for 1989.
We would not, however, go so far as to outlaw surcharges altogether. The fact is that the mass package travel market in Britain is fiercely price competitive, and profit margins are extremely low. Consumers of course benefit greatly from that situation. Tour operators may simply not have the margins to absorb unbudgeted cost increases and any guarantee may necessitate a substantial increase in holiday prices.
The Government believe decisions such as this should be left to tour operators' commercial judgment. We do however regard it as important that tour operators should make it crystal clear in their brochures whether they reserve the right to levy surcharges, and in what circumstances that would be done. We would be happy to see the directive amended to that effect, but otherwise we regard the provisions in the draft directive as a reasonable compromise, and we are pleased to see that the Select Committee regards them as realistic. I am not sure that that will entirely appease the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, but I shall read her speech in detail in Hansard tomorrow.
On complaints, the Government agree that the provision requiring local tourist authorities so far as possible to investigate complaints is cast in far too rigid terms. We are worried about the burden that would place on tourist authorities in the United Kingdom. We also believe that it would be dangerous to encourage tourist authorities, which will have no knowledge of the holiday-maker's contract with the tour operator, to become involved in contractual disputes between those two parties. We should be happy to see that provision dropped from the
1102
directive altogether. As for complaints in general, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, the problem of strict liability is that the tour operator has no choice but to be liable for some situations that sometimes seem faintly ridiculous. I have spoken on this question already.
As regards compulsory insurance and a guarantee fund, the Government take note of the committee's comments. We agree that the ultimate scope of the directive and the extent of potential liabilities need to be clear before the practical repercussions of the provisions of the directive in this area can be properly assessed. We shall be concerned to ensure in negotiation that the directive does not impose uneconomic insurance requirements on tour operators and does not require any unnecessary extension of the UK's present Air Travel Trust guarantee fund, which works efficiently and well.
I shall now deal briefly with other questions that were raised by many noble Lords. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has just fled the Chamber. Perhaps he realised I was about to answer his questions. He discussed—to be fair, many other noble Lords also mentioned this—the cost of complying with the directive. Any estimate that is brought up is fraught with difficulty and subject to an extremely large margin of error. But our best assessment is that the directive would increase holiday prices by not less than £5 per head on average, and possibly by as much as £15 per head.
That compares with an average holiday price of £270. The Commission's claim to the Select Committee that the directive would increase prices by only 2.3 French francs, or 22p per customer is, we believe, grossly misleading. So too is the Commission's recently amended claim that the cost would be .23 of a per cent., or 23p per £100. So far as we can ascertain, the figure that the Commission uses may relate solely to the cost of financial guarantees against insolvency. It thus equates to the cost in the UK of bonds against insolvency. They usually cost a matter of pence per customer.
At this point I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that all risks are insurable. That is not so. It is very probable that insurers would say that some risks must be covered by the tour operators themselves. Other risks they may cover only up to certain financial limits.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked whether persons whose names are on a booking form had the protection of the directive. In Article 8, the benefit of the directive is given to persons on behalf of whom the booking is made, as well as the person who makes the booking. It does not do so in very clear terms however, and we shall seek to ensure that this result is achieved more clearly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, asked whether tour operators had responsibility in the case of airport delays. The directive contains several provisions relevant to tour operators' liability in the case of airport delays. It states that the holidaymaker is allowed to withdraw from the holiday with full refund if there is an unreasonable delay in departure. The Government support that provision. The directive also provides that services forming part of the package must be provided punctually.

1103
The effect of this is probably to make the tour operator liable to compensate the customer for any proportion of the holiday not provided because of a significant delay, for any additional expenses which the customer incurs as a result of such delay and also for the inconvenience he suffers. The Government take the view in principle that tour operators should not escape their contractual obligations to their clients. But in the case of delays beyond their control, it is reasonable that they should be able to limit their liability to such scales of compensation as they may publish. We shall be advancing this view in Brussels.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the directive covered package tours throughout the world. The answer is yes. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked how the directive would be implemented in UK law. The Government will need to consider carefully how the directive should be implemented in United Kingdom law, but it would be premature to say at the moment exactly what method will be used until the directive has been adopted. However, it is likely that it will be implemented by imposing criminal sanctions for breach of some provisions and civil sanctions for breach of others. It is unlikely that a licensing system will be introduced, but I am glad the noble Lord has drawn attention to the extra protection provided to consumers by the misleading prices indication of the Consumer Protection Act.
I now conclude by thanking again the Select Committee, and the noble Lords who have spoken tonight, for their constructive contributions. This is by no means an insignificant directive. Annual sales of package holidays are running, as I have said, at about 13 million and the directive, when it comes back in a new form, will therefore affect a sizeable proportion of this country's population. It is important that the directive comes out in a shape that is satisfactory to the United Kingdom. Your Lordships' report will greatly inform and assist our negotiators. For that we are grateful.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in case I notice a flicker of apprehension upon the brows of noble Lords, I shall instantly make it clear that I have no intention of making another speech. It would be an imposition upon noble Lords, as I have already spoken in a little detail in introducing the report. Equally however I think it would be inappropriate and ungrateful if I did not, just in a sentence or two, record my appreciation of the debate and of the speeches of the noble Lords who have contributed so persuasively and eloquently to it.
The debate has covered the main points in the report. These are the legal base, liability, brochures and advertising, surcharges and the scope of the directive. All these things are dealt with in detail in the report. Therefore, I need not say more in regard to them, except perhaps to identify where the matters are dealt with. The matter of liability is covered in paragraphs 64 to 67. Brochures and advertising come in paragraph 59. Surcharges are in paragraph 63, and the scope of the directive is covered in paragraphs 56 to 58.
1104
I am grateful, as I am sure we all are, to my noble friend the Minister for giving us an indication of the Government's present thinking in regard to the report. I am glad to know that the Commission has been told, at any rate provisionally, that in its present form the directive is unacceptable. It should be improved. I think that there is a general opinion that legislation by a directive is desirable, but not in that form.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, suggested that improvements could be made both by the European Parliament and by the Select Committee. 1 do not think that it can be done by the Select Committee because I think that we are now fiinctus officio having given our report and enabled this debate to take place. There is also the Legal Affairs Committee—the Commission Juridique, to give it its formal title—of which my noble friend Lady Elles is currently the distinguished chairman. She brings great experience to that office.
Perhaps I may thank the Minister and others who have taken part in the debate. I must correct one point attributing to me the statement that in the present generation Englishmen do not travel to see other Englishmen. I should like to think that anything that Sterne wrote could be written by me, but I made a direct quotation from him and referred to what I call the age of privilege—200 years ago—and not to what I call the democratisation of travel, which I warmly welcome.
Finally, on the subject of citations, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was good enough to ask me to confirm the accuracy of his citation:
"To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive".
I think that that is correct, and if my recollection serves it was said by Oliver Goldsmith. If it was not, someone will inform the noble Viscount from their greater knowledge.
Baroness Birk: Robert Louis Stevenson.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gaza and the West Bank
8.52 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to prevent breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in Gaza and the West Bank.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question asks the Government to do their utmost to prevent breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in occupied Palestine. It will be agreed on all sides that the best way of achieving that would be by a settlement to end the occupation altogether.
We are now faced with a more promising prospect in that regard than ever before. We have had the decisions of the Algiers Conference of the PLO; we have had the surge of world support for the Palestine cause; and yesterday the United States took a historic step in declaring the opening of a dialogue with the PLO. I think that we shall all agree that that could be a great turning point. We should agree that the

1105
Foreign Secretary was right today to say that it is now Israel's turn to make a positive response in the new circumstances.
However, there is no sign as yet of a change of attitude on the Israeli side. It may well be that that is partly due to a religious or ideological desire to maintain and colonise the occupied territories. It is more likely that it is a reflection of a genuine if, I think, illusory fear that Palestinian self-determination in the occupied territories will be a threat to the survival of the state of Isreal.
An objective observer might find that strange, might find indeed that it was the reverse of the truth and that the continuance of the occupation is the greatest danger to the state of Israel and that a settlement can be designed which makes it safe. Unfortunately I think it is true that for reasons of history, which every civilised person understands and respects, many Israelis are quite irrational about their security. They find it harder than others to trust their neighbours. They find it easier than others to believe that they are safer by domination than by compromise.
All those who want a settlement must do their utmost to persuade the Israelis that on the contrary the dangers to them exist in maintaining or trying to maintain the status quo. They must be persuaded that many safeguards can be arranged in a settlement that would offer them security: for example, underwriting the frontiers by the great powers; the presence of a United Nations peacekeeping force in the occupied territories and in Gaza; monitoring the frontiers, which could be demilitarised; the acceptance by the new state—as I hope it would—of a kind of Austrian status of neutrality; and arms limitations. All those and many more options are practicable. In the search for a settlement I believe that anyone who wants a settlement should try to persuade that truth on the Israelis. The Israelis must also be urged to speak with the Palestinians and to participate in an international conference.
Finally, on the Palestinian side, in order to help the moderates who have made such a great initiative I would hope that, for example, Mr. Arafat could be invited to meet the Foreign Ministers of the European Community. In Britain I would hope that the Foreign Secretary could invite appropriate PLO representatives to meet him.
Even on the most hopeful estimates, the Israeli occupation is likely to continue for many months if not for years. I should like to consider what can be done to alleviate the suffering of the people there. In large measure I shall be following representations made to the Government last week by seven of our major charities—the British Refugee Council, Christian Aid, Oxfam, Quaker Peace and Service, Save the Children Fund, the United Nations Association's International Service, and War on Want.
The Israeli Government have banned the media from the areas of operation of the Israeli army. The outrages which are committed on the West Bank are becoming almost a matter of routine. It is possible to become forgetful, even de-sensitised, to what is going on there and to the sufferings of the victims. We can read the bald statistics that up to 400 civilians have
1106
been shot dead, that others have been beaten to death, that many thousands more have been wounded by gunfire and many thousands detained without trial or deported.
The facts are so outrageous that it is hard to believe them. It is hard to imagine soldiers indiscriminately beating and shooting unarmed civilians, men and women, boys and girls—sometimes small boys and small girls. To all civilised people, not least those who have many friends among the Palestinians in the occupied territories, Israel's conduct is utterly intolerable. My purpose tonight is to urge the Government to redouble their efforts to put an end to it.
The Government's obligation here in my view derives from Britain being a signatory to the fourth Geneva convention. That convention was agreed in 1949 and has since been signed by 163 governments, all of them—except Israel—declaring that the convention applies to the Israeli occupation.
I should like to mention a few of the articles of the convention which are being persistently breached by the Israelis. For example, Article 33 reads in part:
"Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation and of terrorism are prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited".
For intimidation and terror we have only to look at the casualty figures I have quoted. Collective punishments are regularly imposed in the form of destruction of crops, either by uprooting olive trees and citrus groves, or by banning whole villages from harvesting their crops, or in other ways. As regards crops, the Israeli commander of the central area declared last September:
"This was the policy during the plum harvest and during the grape harvest. It will also be in effect during the olive harvest".
Other collective penalties include cutting off water and electricity, preventing food and fuel from reaching camps and villages and the demolition of houses.
Article 49 reads in part:
"Individual or mass forcible transfers as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or that of any other country … are prohibited".
But of course deportations by the Israeli Government have continued. They have been unanimously condemned by the Security Council, including the United States. Scores of Palestinians born and bred in Palestine have been taken from their families and dumped in Lebanon. The Minister of Defence in Israel, Mr Rabin, said:
"We have used deportations in the past and we will use them again in the future".
The same Article 49 continues:
"The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".
But of course in the settlements policy the Israeli Government breach that provision as well. I think it is interesting that an explanation of this section of the article was given and published by the International Red Cross long before the Israeli occupation began. That commentary said that this section of the article:
"is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain powers which transferred portions of their own populations to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonise those territories".

1107
I am afraid that one could hardly have a better definition than that of the Israeli settlements policy.
Articles 79 to 135 set out regulations for the treatment of internees. They insist that since detention is without a charge and without trial and should be strictly for security reasons only, it must not be treated as a punishment and detainees must not be removed from the occupied territories.
Possibly the most notorious Israel detention camp is Ansar 3 at Ketsiot which holds 2,500 Palestinian detainees. It is in the Negev desert, outside the occupied territories and therefore illegal. The physical conditions in the camp and the treatment of the detainees go far beyond punishment. In fact it is outrageous. Last August the International Red Cross declared:
"The International Committee for the Red Cross learned with consternation that two administrative detainees had been shot dead at the Queziot [Ketsiotj military detention centre on 16th August 1988 … Ever since the camp was opened in March 1988 the International Committee of the Red Cross has repeatedly stressed to the Israeli authorities that detention and internment of persons from the occupied territories on Israeli soil, particularly in the harsh climatic conditions prevailing in this case, was not compatible with the provisions of the 4th Geneva convention and could only lead to tension and unrest".
To sum up there is a summing up article, Article 147, which defines what it calls "grave" breaches of the convention:
"Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment … wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement, wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial … extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly".
That describes the Israeli occupation, and though it was drafted 40 years ago it is easily recognisable today as a description of that occupation.
Those who drafted the convention after the war had in mind the horrors of the Nazi occupation. The crimes committed by the Nazi occupiers, especially against the Jewish people, are and remain unique. Nevertheless, it is ironical that this convention should now be directly relevant to crimes committed by occupiers who are themselves Jewish.
I turn now to the Government's duties in this matter. Article 1 of the convention states:
"The high contracting parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present convention in all circumstances".
All signatories commit themselves to ensuring respect for the convention.
I therefore ask the Minister a number of questions on this matter of which I have given him notice. First, I ask him to state that the British defence regulations under which these injustices are committed by the Israelis are null and void, and that they have been invalidated and were invalidated by the British Government when it left the area at the end of the mandate. I ask him to inform the Israelis of this and argue, as he can, that these regulations can no longer be legitimately invoked. Secondly, what approaches has he made to the Israeli Government about these breaches of the convention and what were the results?
Thirdly, has he discussed collective action on this matter with fellow signatories of the convention in
1108
the European Community? For example, has he suggested or, if not, will he suggest that the European Community might form a commission to monitor breaches of the international convention? Maybe while condemning the breaches of this convention on the West Bank and in Gaza, it will be the view of the Government and of the Community that it would be inappropriate for the Community to continue to grant to Israel valuable financial and economic privileges in the Common Market which it does not grant to other countries with impeccable records on human rights. I should very much like to hear the Minister's comment on that.
To conclude, the Government's record on Palestine has been a little patchy recently. There have been good things; but, on the other hand, we notice that the Government declined to vote against refusing Mr. Arafat a visa to visit the United States. They refused to vote in favour of holding the United Nations Assembly in Geneva which has proved to be most successful and effective. Therefore, I hope that, despite these actions of the Government on abstentions, which are difficult to understand and which have been defended by the Government with a lot of weasel words but without any reference to principle, the Minister will be able to give some truly positive replies to the questions that I have asked him.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He and I have spoken together in debates on Palestine on numerous occasions and we have nearly always taken the same line, which is to underline and reinforce the extent of the human rights violations, generally speaking the attacks on the Arabs by the Israelis. As your Lordships know, I had a debate yesterday on human rights violations worldwide. I deliberately refrained from mentioning Palestine.
I shall not go into details now because I have spoken about these violations on so many occasions before that it would only weary your Lordships if I did so again. However, I shall bring out one point that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned, and it is important to consider it in some detail, and that is the destruction of houses. The second main point I want to make, which so far as I remember he did not touch upon, is the educational problem and the closure of so many educational institutions.
Let us turn first to the demolition of houses. In the first week of November of this year at least 62 Palestinians were made homeless through extensive house demolition. According to the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre, the Israeli authorities are reported to have demolished 16 houses in various West Bank locations and two in the Gaza Strip. In the villages of Kufr Salem and Beit Fureek, where four and five buildings were targeted respectively, the army operation sparked off violent villagers' protests, but of course these protests were unavailing.
What were the reasons for these demolitions? The military authorities justified them by declaring that the houses concerned had been built without a permit. Of course it is almost impossible to get a

1109
permit. Many people are still homeless. Indeed apart from the demolitions of whole houses, it has been reported that parts of houses have been sealed off, thereby depriving the families of their full usage of these houses. That is the first point.
The second point is even more important, and so far as I know has not been mentioned at all in any of our previous debates in your Lordships' House, and that is the clamp-down on education. To the Palestinians education is of paramount important. Your Lordships will know how many Palestinians there are all over the Middle East and indeed in Europe too who have studied worldwide and have the most remarkable education qualifications, but the Israelis are deliberately stifling this expansion of education.
Indeed I would say that the Palestinians regard education as an insurance policy that would provide them with a bulwark against the appalling things that have been happening to them. But what is the situation now? I should be most grateful if the Minister could confirm these facts. According to the best information that I have received, the eight Palestinian universities, which together have more than 17,000 students, have been closed since the beginning of the year; 850 primary and secondary schools were closed for more than four months, reopened for a few weeks, and have been closed again since 21st July. On 19th September 10 adult training centres that give evening classes were closed.
This systematic persecution and will to prevent all education are on the general pretext that the universities and schools are centres of unrest. Whether or not that is so one does not know. We have of course heard of the activities of students throwing stones and so on, but I am quite certain that the activities of these students do not in any way justify the draconian measures taken against the education system. What is even worse is that parents who have been giving children lessons at home have been accused of subversive activity. That seems scarcely credible. I shall be interested to hear any comments that the Minister may have.
There seems no point in going into further detail at this later hour. In conclusion, I wish to say again that I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I very much welcome recent developments, particularly the so-called formation of a Palestinian state—how long it will survive, we do not know—and also Yasser Arafat's renunciation of terrorism reported in the press—again, we wonder how permanent that is. I very much hope that it will last.
I have always had sympathetic replies from the Minister to my interventions on Palestine and the occupied territories I therefore look forward to his reply to this short debate.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we all wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for choosing today for the debate. It seems an amazing coincidence that we should discuss the subject on what is, as the noble Lord said, a historic day. We all hope and pray that it may be a turning point in what
1110
has been the sad and tragic background of the Middle East for many years.
The noble Lord gave some reasons why he felt that a settlement would be in Israel's interest. I completely agree with what he said. He asked that the Government should urge the Israelis to respond positively to Arafat's proposal and to take part in the negotiations. I agree with that also.
He then moved to the part of the debate that concerns the fourth Geneva convention and concentrated very much on the atrocities and breaches that have occurred. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, supported the condemnation of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, of Israeli action. The noble Viscount and the noble Lord asked the Minister whether he can confirm or give some account of what he knows about the breaches of the convention that have taken place in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
I am sure that the decision of the American Government to hold a dialogue with the PLO leader will be welcome news to all noble Lords. It must be regarded as a satisfactory outcome of a series of diplomatic developments that have gone on during the year, which the noble Lord, Lod Mayhew, listed. We join in giving a firm welcome to the statement, made in unequivocal terms by Yasser Arafat in Geneva, that the PLO renounces terrorism in all its forms, recognises Israel's right to exist and accepts without conditions UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 as a basis for negotiation of a Middle East peace settlement. All that has happened there is of a most positive nature.
That is one side of the equation. We wonder what has been the response of the Israelis. So far we have heard some Israeli spokesmen who have reacted in a very negative way. Indeed, the ambassador in Washington said that he was bitterly disappointed. There has today been from Shimon Peres a statement which is of a more positive nature. He said, among other things:
"We believe that the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis, and the solution of the Palestinian problem, can be reached only diplomatically, politically and peacefully. We do rot seek any military solution to these problems".
He said also:
"If there will be a period of quietness, I am sure that the Government of Israel, present and future, will agree to the holding of completely free elections in the West Bank, so Cut the Palestinians will be able to elect their own representatives".
It must be remembered that there is no official response from the Israeli Government because at present there is no Israeli Government. The sooner the political parties in Israel come together and form a government, the sooner we shall hear officially of the way in which they intend to respond to the PLO leader's concession. If they doubt Yasser Arafat's sincerity, they should call his bluff. If he cannot fulfil his promises he will be exposed. That can come only from a government spokesman when a firm government are in place.
We are at an early stage in the process and a great deal must be decided. We should feed the present eurphoria but it may not be maintained. However, we must hope that Yasser Arafat will maintain the support of his people and that the talks with the

1111
Americans will be a significant step forward in the peace process. We also hope that the Israeli's will make a move in that direction.
The noble Lord and the noble Viscount have told the Minister that we expect an Israeli response to the initiative; otherwise we cannot believe that they want peace. If that is so it can be only because they wish to retain the territories which they now hold, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has said. Today my right honourable friend Gerald Kaufman called on Israel to hold talks with the PLO after the US recognised the movement as a negotiating partner. I know that pressure will be brought to bear from every side for that to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke of the breaches of the fourth Geneva convention and I should like to comment briefly in support of what he said. One cannot doubt the validity of the proof of the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian communities. However, we look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
The noble Lord has pointed out the fact that the Israelis maintain that they are not in breach of the convention; that the territories are not occupied but are disputed; and that they are in charge of the territories until such time as their status is decided by a peace treaty between the belligerent parties. He has asked the Minister to urge the Israelis to accept the convention of which they are co-signatories, as are we.
There is a clear impasse because there is no Israeli recognition of the convention. That leads the noble Lord to wonder what can now be done for the suffering of the Palestinian families who have lived in distress and have seriously suffered over the past year. He mentioned the group of seven major British voluntary agencies which are working in the territories and which have drawn attention to many of the violations. The noble Lord pointed out the fact that for most of the year schools have been closed by military order. That is a serious matter considering the effect it may have on the present generation of children. The voluntary agencies have pointed out the harm that is being done to the work of charitable and development institutions. They have also pointed out the harm that is being done to the economy of the territories.
The British Refugee Council has been most active. It hosts an information service which monitors deportations and house demolitions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It maintains that they are in breach of the convention. It also maintains that there has been a very rapid increase in the use of such measures by the administration over the past year. There has been a rise in deportations as well as punitive house demolitions. Again, those have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Amnesty International is always very concerned about the use of live ammunition and the imprisonment of people who refuse to do military service. It has brought out some very worrying statistics. UNICEF, which spends 2½ million dollars a year in these territories, is also worried about the serious state of the health of young children. We are
1112
receiving clear indications from those organisations, which want nothing better than to work and improve the state of the people in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank. Quite clearly that is a very difficult task.
From these Benches, we urge the Government to do two things: We should like them to support those voluntary organisations in giving further aid to enable them to increase their work. We should also like them to press for an international conference, which is the only framework in which to work out the future and to find a way towards a peaceful settlement.
We must remember that building peace out of conflict is a very slow process and demands understanding, trust and reconciliation. To find those ingredients on each side of this conflict will certainly need help and support from many different areas. I hope that the Israelis will play their part in working towards that peaceful settlement.
Perhaps I may quote my right honourable friend Mr. Kaufman, who said today:
"we believe that it is necessary for Israel to talk to enemies as well as friends in order to secure peace".
I shall end on that note.
9.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has again demonstrated his deep knowledge of the Middle East, let alone his skill in timing, in drawing our attention today to the question of the Israeli practices in the occupied territories. I am very grateful to him for giving me notice of many of the points he covered in his speech and the questions he asked.
To some extent other contributors, the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, have ranged rather more widely. However, there can be no doubt of the concern we all feel, which the Government fully share, at the situation in the occupied territories and the lack of progress towards a negotiated settlement.
It is just over a year since the Palestinian uprising began. It shows no sign of abating. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, gave some figures. Mine are that over 300 Palestinians have been killed over the last year and thousands injured. Over 18,000 have been arrested. Some 5,000 are still detained; 1,600 of them without trial under administrative orders and many in appalling conditions. It is surely now clear to all that, as my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary warned before the uprising began, the status quo cannot continue. Repression offers no answer; it merely brutalises the occupiers.
Our view is clear. Pending its withdrawal as part of a comprehensive settlement in accordance with Security Council Resolution No. 242, Israel has a duty to administer the occupied territories in accordance with international law and human rights standards.
We agree of course that Israel has the right, indeed the responsibility, to ensure public order and safety in the occupied territories. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague regulations states this unambiguously; but there are limits. The maintenance of public order cannot

1113
justify the use of excessive force, including live ammunition and plastic bullets fired at close range and beatings of unarmed persons. The figures I have already quoted testify to the results of these policies. But they have not weakened Palestinian resolve; rather, every funeral strengthens it.
We, like the great majority of the international community, maintain that the fourth Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war of 12th August 1949 applies to the occupied territories. There is no substance in Israeli claims to the contrary. In our view the deportation of Palestinians from the occupied territories—32 so far this year—contravenes Article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggests. This policy has been widely condemned, most notably in Resolutions 607 and 608 passed by the United Nations Security Council earlier this year. Population transfer, whatever the numbers involved, is unacceptable.
Collective punishments, too, such as the demolition of houses, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, referred, are prohibited not only by Article 50 of the 1907 Hague regulations but also by Article 33 of the fourth Geneva convention. They conflict, sadly, with Israel's proud traditions of justice and observance of the rule of law. They only add to the sum of Palestinian grievances. Israeli apologists sometimes argue that these punishments are provided for in regulations surviving from the British Mandate. Let me take this opportunity to make clear, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, as he would have me do, that such is not the view of Her Majesty's Government. As a result of the Palestinian (Revocations) Order in Council 1948, the Palestine (Defence Order in Council 1937, and the defence regulations made under it, have not been in force, as a matter of English law, since the making of the 1948 revocation order. If the Israelis now seek to apply the same or similar regulations, that is their decision for which they must take responsibility.
I can confirm, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has told your Lordships, that schools and universities in the occupied territories have been closed by the Israelis on security grounds. We and our European partners have made representations to the Israelis but have been unable to convince them to take a different view of their security problems. The noble Viscount gave figures but I am afraid that I am riot in a position this evening to verify those figures but I shall look into the position to see whether I can provide any further information by letter.
We have repeatedly raised with the Israelis these and other breaches of the fourth Geneva convention. The Twelve approached the Israelis earlier this year about deportations; there have been no more deportations since our démarche on 18th August. My honourable friend the Minister of State raised the use of plastic bullets with the Israeli ambassador in September and the Twelve followed up in Jerusalem in October. We have also taken up a number of individual cases in some of which the action we sought has subsequently been taken. The Foreign Minister of Greece, speaking on behalf of the Twelve
1114
in this week's General Assembly debate on Palestine in Geneva, called once again on Israel to respect the convention. The Israelis can therefore be in no doubt of our views on this matter. We shall of course be ready to take up with them further breaches of the convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested a new body to monitor Israeli breaches of the convention. We and our partners in the Twelve already work together to monitor Israeli practices in the occupied territories and take up specific cases as appropriate. Therefore, while I hear what the noble Lord says, I have to say that we do not consider that additional machinery is needed. Nor do we think that cancellation of the EC's agreements with Israel, which are similar to those the EC has with other Mediterranean states, would help to secure Israeli compliance with the convention. Economic sanctions are not the answer to the complex problems of the Middle East.
We shall continue our own efforts to help to improve conditions in the occupied territories. We have increased our bilateral aid programme to £840,000 in 1987 and the European Community's aid has also gone up. Our own aid is spent largely on the training of Palestinians and in support of projects run by British non-governmental organisations to which I, too, gladly pay tribute for the very good work that they do.
We continue to be one of the largest contributors, both directly and via the EC, to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency who provide services, mainly health and education, for the 2·2 million registered Palestinian refugees in the region. I am glad to pay tribute now to the professionalism and dedication of UNRWA's staff, who include many Britons. They do a first-rate job. In addition to our annual contribution of £5·25 million to UNRWA's regular budget we are now contributing to the establishment of a new unit to assess the requirement for additional services in the West Bank and Gaza.
We have also played a leading role in promoting preferential access to the EC for Palestinian industrial and agricultural products. Palestinian producers have reached agreement with the Israeli authorities over export arrangements and contracts have now been signed to supply produce from the occupied territories to outlets in Europe. I understand that the first shipment of citrus fruit from Gaza is due to arrive in the Netherlands in the next few days. We shall continue to monitor closely how these arrangements work in practice.
In all these ways we are trying to help improve conditions in the occupied territories. But economic development can be no substitute for a just and lasting political settlement which will enable both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security. Such a settlement must be based on the two principles outlined in the Venice Declaration of 1980 which we and our European partners have consistently upheld; recognition of the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to a secure existence, and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
The Venice Declaration also said that the PLO should be associated with any negotiations. Clearly,

1115
the Palestinians must be involved in any discussions of their own future and must be able to choose their own representatives at such discussions. Equally, the Israelis cannot be expected to negotiate with people pledged to the destruction of their state. That is why we have argued that the PLO, if it is to take part in negotiations, must accept Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, recognise Israel's right to a secure existence and renounce terrorism and violence.
On 9th December a senior adviser to Mr. Arafat, Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif, met my honourable friend, the Minister of State, and issued a public statement which met in full our long-standing conditions for ministerial contact with the PLO. This was an important step forward which was confirmed by Mr. Arafat, in Geneva yesterday. We warmly welcome his clear statement which has opened the way to a dialogue between the US and the PLO and to the PLO's eventual participation in peace negotiations. We are greatly encouraged by this development.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked whether or not there was a possibility of a meeting here between the Secretary of State, the Foreign Ministers of the EC and Mr. Arafat. We have no such plan at present but we would be willing to consider it if we thought that a meeting would contribute to the peace process.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I very much appreciate the Minister's reply. I did not specifically ask that the Secretary of State should meet Mr. Arafat but that he should meet appropriate representatives of the PLO.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if I mistook the noble Lord, I apologise. Perhaps I may give him the same answer to that point. My honourable friend had a meeting only on 9th December. This is a step in that direction. I hope that the noble Lord will welcome that. We shall certainly consider any other suggestions for meetings in due course.
The PLO is now committed to the search for a peaceful solution. But that search will not be easy; the past 40 years have left a legacy of suspicion and
1116
hatred on both sides. The Palestinians will have to live up to their fair words and continue to demonstrate to Israel their genuine commitment to peace. Just as Israel will not repress the uprising by force, so the Palestinians will not achieve justice through terrorism and violence.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said, it is now for Israel to respond positively to the PLO's commitment to peace. Israel too needs to confirm its acceptance of Security Council Resolution 242 and the principle of territory for peace. Israeli caution is understandable. But present Israeli policies offer no prospect of short-term quiet in the occupied territories let alone of a long-term solution. If Israel is to achieve the peace it needs, its Government must surely not denounce the PLO out of hand but test its good faith through face-to-face negotiations.
Like the noble Baroness, we still believe that an international conference under UN auspices offers the best framework for such negotiations. Such a conference should not have the power to impose solutions, nor to veto agreements freely negotiated between the parties; it would not therefore be a trap for Israel but an opportunity. We call on Israel to reconsider its opposition to a conference, and on its new leaders, whoever they may be, to have the courage that moderation and peace demand.
We look too to the new United States Administration, whose role in the peace process remains indispensable, to give priority to new efforts to bring about negotiations. We and our European partners remain ready to complement and support these efforts in any way we can.

London Regional Transport Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before ten o'clock.