Lords Sitting of 24 January 1989

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

Housing and Interest Rates
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect current interest rates are having on the housing situation.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the increase in house prices has slowed down, to an extent that varies between different parts of the country. The number of houses being sold appears to have fallen, and there are no definite signs as yet of a fall in house building.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I appreciate that Answer, but I am not surprised that the Minister made no reference to mortgage payments. Is he aware, when talking of mortgage payments, that a person receiving a £20,000 discount on purchasing his council house—there are now quite a large number of such people—receives the equivalent of a £50 payment per week towards his mortgage? At the same time people in the same income group who happen to be unfortunate enough to be owner occupiers have faced an increase of £40 to £50 a month. When will the Government have the same sympathy for owner occupiers as they appear to show readily to people receiving these discounts on council houses?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course we encourage owner occupation. I am pleased with the way the right to buy provisions have progressed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there have been a few thousand incidents where folk on the point of buying their own homes find that because of these steady increases in interest rates they cannot afford to do so and foreclosure takes place? That means that a house becomes empty and someone else becomes homeless. Do the Government not take those kind of things into consideration?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, of course the Government consider that aspect. But if the noble Lord refers to the Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on 11 th October, he will see that I covered the point very clearly then.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is there not some contradiction in the Government's policy, which is encouraging home ownership at the same time as putting up mortgages? That has resulted in a dramatic fall in mortgage lending in the past month. The figure stands at about half that of the previous month.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have the figure for last month, but the figures that I have show that on average in the first quarter of last year 109,000 mortgages were taken out per month. In October, which is the latest month for which figures are available, that figure was 81,000.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that considered opinion everywhere is unanimous on the fact that the Government should retain the containing of inflation as their number one priority?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope the opinion is unanimous. From some of the remarks I have heard recently, I think some people would prefer inflation to go up.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the policy of the Government apparently has been to control inflation, but that their first priority has been the reduction of direct taxation regardless of the effect upon inflation? One can go back to the increase in VAT and the reduction in direct taxation to support that point of view.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed it is of vital importance to the whole country and to everybody in it that inflation is kept down.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is not the answer to the original Question—the effect of interest rates on the current housing situation—the fact that 450 people per week are having their homes repossessed because of mortgage default? That figure is expected to rise very shortly to about 700 people. Those people are joining ever lengthening queues for non-existent public housing. In 1987, the latest figures that I can find, 370,000 people were accepted as homeless by authorities on the authorities' own criteria. Is that not the real answer as regards the situation that currently exists as a result of government policy on housing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if one compares the figures for the first half of 1987 with those for the first half of 1988, one will see that repossessions are down, overdue loans are down and the proportion of homeless as a result of this is also down.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, until recently was it not the policy of the Labour Party to stop people buying their houses at all?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is sometimes very difficult to keep up with the policy of the Opposition.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl a very simple question: are the Government really suggesting that it does not matter how many people are made homeless as long as they continue with a particular policy?—because that is what the Answer suggests. Is the Minister aware that there is increasing homelessness because people who have bought their houses are unable to continue with their mortgage payments? That is the problem that

591
we are asking the Minister to address himself to. Will he say what the Government will do about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not agree that there is the link that the noble Lord has suggested. There was a long discussion yesterday at Question Time about the homeless, in response to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. There are a number of other reasons such as, alas! the break-up of marriages, which cause people to give up their houses.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I accept what the Government say about inflation being the number one enemy. That is a view with which I concur absolutely and in my view there is no argument against it. However, is there not an irony in the situation? A young married couple, for example, to take a simple case, buy their own home. They are very excited and pleased. Their repayments are £250 a month. Before they move in the repayments have risen to £350 a month, and they are now asked to pay £400 a month. Is it not ironic that, as a result, the Government's policy with regard to inflation will be destroyed, because the first thing that that young man will do is demand an increase in wages?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord and the Government are in agreement that it is of primary importance that inflation is kept down. There have been high interest rates before, but as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on llth October, the building societies and mortgage lenders will look at every case in order to minimise their impact.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister take on board the fact that, while part of the nexus of housing is mortgage payments, it must also be recognised that for many of us it is adequate housing for those in need which counts? Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to encourage councils to build houses at affordable rents?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we touched on that issue yesterday. I should remind the noble Lord that it is not only local councils which are involved. Provision for the funding of housing associations will go up by 80 per cent. in the next three years, and there is also the private sector.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that to some extent the building societies are responsible for the problems in which many young people find themselves, because they let them take on too large a mortgage while interest rates are low without anticipating what happens when interest rates rise?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I do not think that one can blame the building societies in that respect.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister is usually most sympathetic in his answers towards
592
people who are receiving rough treatment in the housing sector. It is sad that he does not appear to have expressed any sympathy whatsoever today for people whose mortgages have risen excessively as a result of government policy. Is the Minister satisfied that owner occupiers ought to be the chief victims of the blundering of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? And when is it going to stop?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should seriously contest that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has blundered. There is a very positive incentive for people to own their homes. That is what people want to do. All of us who have mortgages would obviously prefer interest rates to be lower. However, I know that all those who pay mortgages would prefer slightly higher interest rates now than higher inflation in due course.

Energy Efficiency Office
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the activities of the Energy Efficiency Office will be substantially reduced in the financial year 1989-90.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the activities of the Energy Efficiency Office will not be substantially reduced in 1989–90. Due to the success of the initial general phase of the EEO's programmes we are now able to enter a fresh phase of activity. We shall be targeting our activities more selectively on key areas of energy use and on the work of the regional energy efficiency officers at local level. We are preparing a new best practice programme which will give consumers authoritative and independent advice and information.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that considerable confusion has been caused by the severe reduction in the funding of the Energy Efficiency Office proposed for next year from £24-5 million to £15 million at the very time when the Government are putting so much emphasis on the environmental aspects of the way in which we live? Does she not agree that improving energy efficiency is one of the most effective ways of achieving the containment of the greenhouse effect?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The reduction proposed in the Energy Efficiency Office's programme for the coming year is a direct result of the successes achieved in the earlier campaign. I am sure that your Lordships will all agree that the object of a campaign is to have some effect, and when one has a successful campaign one acts accordingly. However, it is precisely because of the greenhouse effect to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred that we are taking energy efficiency just as seriously as we did before and making it an essential part of our programme and plans.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, will my noble friend say what allowance for improved energy efficiency has been assumed in the government requirement for 15 gigawatts of additional generating capacity by the end of the century?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the Government's privatisation proposals we take into account the role of energy efficiency. We are breaking new ground in promoting energy efficiency within the industry and by customers. For example, the director general and the Secretary of State will both be required and have a duty placed upon them to promote efficiency, and suppliers will be required to provide consumers with guidance on efficient energy use.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is some confusion about present government proposals in the Electricity Bill concerning ressponsibility for energy conservation, because a number of different versions have been produced in another place? Will she confirm that the privatised area electricity boards will themselves in future be responsible for encouraging and promoting the conservation of energy in households? Will the noble Baroness also consider the possibility that the generating authorities may also have that duty placed upon them, and thus encourage the area boards to do the same?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that in responding to the previous question I answered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The distribution companies are the suppliers. A duty will be placed upon them to provide consumers with guidance on the efficient use of electricity. In the climate of competition which privatisation will engender with other forms of energy there will be competition between suppliers of energy in other fields as well. The duty placed on the director general and the Secretary of State will ensure that the generation side of the equation is also covered.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister kindly confirm that in the Government's plans there is no duty laid directly on the privatised generating companies?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the whole purpose of the regulation is to ensure that the generation of electricity will be carried out according to certain requirements that are felt necessary, and it is the regulatory scheme which will ensure efficient generation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House when the Government expect to publish this huge complex of regulations from which so much is expected and on which so much reliance is placed?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fear that my noble friend has been straying slightly from the Question on the Order Paper. That is also true of some of the previous questions. However, the licences dealing
594
with a great deal of the regulation have already been published.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the outlines of these licences have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords; I believe that is the case. They are available.

Nuclear Accidents: Reporting Procedures
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what occasions since the nuclear accident at Windscale in 1957 other nuclear accidents have been concealed from the public.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the fire which occurred in October 1957 in a nuclear pile at Windscale was not concealed from the public. Indeed, a detailed White Paper on the accident was published within a month and a further three White Papers within a year of the fire. No comparable accident has since occurred at a nuclear plant in this country.
Reporting procedures ensure that any incidents at nuclear sites which might be of safety significance are reported in site newsletters, each of which is placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there were two accidents at Windscale in 1957? The one to which I referred—if the noble Baroness has read the Macmillan papers which were released at the beginning of the year she will know of it—was an accident that happened before the fire occurred. It was an accident that infected over 800 farms which were supplying milk that was drunk by members of the public while the Medical Advisory Council was reducing the limit on Strontium 90 in milk. This was concealed from the public. How many more times have such accidents been concealed from the public, especially in view of the fact that there is a widespread belief that over the past two years, since the Chernobyl disaster, the public have consumed a great deal of lamb that has been contaminated by nuclear fallout?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the incident to which the noble Lord refers was an unplanned release of Strontium 90 earlier in 1957. The fire accident took place in October 1957. This was reported. The release of the papers on 1st January this year was by no means the first report of that incident.
I can assure your Lordships that all information on radioactive discharges has been given to either the Black Committee or the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. Both of those committees have looked at the possible effects on health of the fire and other incidents, and indeed,

595
at the whole of the site's operations through the years.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was Lord President of the Council at that time in 1957. Will my noble friend confirm that twice in the course of two confused and rambling questions the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has seriously misled the House? Quantities of milk had to be destroyed and that would not have been possible without the fullest publicity—which was given. Can my noble friend confirm that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for clarifying the record.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the Minister for her Answer to my noble friend. Is it the case that the convention on nuclear accidents, to which the Government are a signatory, does not provide for any dissemination of information to the public about accidents that may take place and that this issue was the object of our attention at the Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Bill? Will she confirm her view that such accidents are reported and therefore that information about them is available to the public? At this point will she indicate her acceptance of an amendment to that effect to the Atomic Energy Bill?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must not pre-empt the discussions and decisions of your Lordships' House. However, the independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which was set up as a consequence of the Windscale fire, has proved that valuable lessons have been learnt as a result of that accident and has formed the basis of today's safety culture. We believe that the United Kingdom's nuclear industry has a safety record that is second to none.
As I indicated in my original response, all incidents and matters concerning safety are reported to the public through the site newsletter system in various ways—through the local liaison committees and local newspapers as well as via the medium of the Houses of Parliament. So there is very little risk of any incident which would not come immediately to the notice of the wider public.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question she has just answered implies that terrifying information was deliberately concealed from the public? Since noble Lords are responsible for the accuracy of any Questions tabled on the Order Paper, is it in order for the country to be disquieted by a Question which carries an implication that has such a possible consequence?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that point. There can be no doubt that in the 1950s there was a level of secrecy surrounding nuclear matters that would be quite inappropriate for today's civil nuclear programme.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Minister pay tribute to the work that is now being done at Windscale to make the public more informed about what goes on? The new large public information centre was visited last year by tens of thousands of people who now know very much more about nuclear energy than they did previously. Does she agree that this example could be followed more widely?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, today the industry makes enormous efforts to inform the public about nuclear matters through publications and allowing site visits. When I visited Sellafield last year I was informed that it was the fastest growing tourist attraction in the country.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all the information to which I referred in my supplementary question as well as in my original Question is drawn directly from the Macmillan papers that were released at the beginning of this year? Is she further aware that it is stated in those papers that the object of the Government was to prevent a public panic and outcry against the use of nuclear energy and that a proposal by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who was then Lord President of the Council, to hold a debate in the House of Lords on the effect of radioactivity on the environment was blocked? And that—
Noble Lords: Question! Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: And, my Lords, that the then Home Secretary, Rab Butler, wrote on one of the minutes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—and this is a quotation:
"What is clear is that we certainly don't want such a debate in the Commons; ergo we don't want to encourage a debate in the Lords".
Is she aware of that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I suspect that the information of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, comes not so much from the Macmillan papers as from an article in the Observer which appeared on 1st January this year. I can only reaffirm that the present Government are committed to openness in the nuclear industry.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not time that we had a close season until 1st January 1990 for this Question? We shall then know whether the government indulged in any skulduggery during 1960. If the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will wait patiently year by year until something positive emerges, we can be spared this kind of thing at Question Time.
A noble Lord: My Lords, make it 1st April!

>ConsGold Takeover Bid: Report
3 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the report of the inspectors appointed by virtue of Section 442 of the

597
Companies Act 1985 in the matter of the Minorco/Consolidated Gold-fields takeover bid.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graham): My Lords, I have asked the inspectors to give these inquiries top priority. They have made a good start but their inquiries are at an early stage and I cannot say when their final report will be submitted.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is my noble friend aware how puzzling it must be even to his most fervent admirers that Her Majesty's Government could contemplate acting upon the advice of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission alone prior to it, and indeed he himself, having sight of the report of the inspectors he had appointed to investigate matters directly affecting not only the bid but the public interest which could result in consideration of criminal proceedings?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should explain to my noble friend that these are two entirely separate matters. Inspectors have been appointed under the Companies Act and the Financial Services Act to look at the occurrence of certain matters prior to the bid. The bid was referred by me to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. The inspectors have indeed let the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have an interim report which has been studied and is contained in its report to me.
However, these are two separate matters. I believe that they should be kept as such.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, as to my noble friend's reply, these are not two separate matters. Is it not absolutely central to the public interest to ensure that those who seek control of British companies should be seen to be, if I may use the current colloquialism, squeaky clean before any bid is approved by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and you, the Secretary of State?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no. The Government are devoting considerable resources to upholding the integrity of the market. We have had the Companies Act and the Financial Services Act. Investigations play a major part in this process. It would be quite wrong to delay the decision on commercial issues until investigations on other matters of this kind have been completed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are all anxious to avoid the embarrassment of the Lonrho affair. Will the Secretary of State give an unequivocal assurance that the report of the inspectors will be published?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should say to the noble Lord that I cannot detect any embarrassment whatever in the Lonrho affair. Of course, it is the general practice to publish reports on public companies unless there happen to be strong reasons to the contrary. Obviously, I cannot give an
598
undertaking before I have received the report but in the normal way we would tend to publish it.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, does the Secretary of State recall the report of the Department of Trade inspectors of July 1980 which clearly demonstrated that the companies associated with the Anglo American group deliberately avoided the disclosures duties of the Companies Act? Why was it considered impolitic to publish the 1986 report of the Department of Trade inspectors?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, these are two separate matters. With regard to the 1980 report, no criminal proceedings followed that investigation. But the law on disclosure of interest and securities was strengthened in the Companies Act 1981. We have also had some modifications to strengthen that aspect in the recent Bill before your Lordships' House.
On the 1986 report—which has no bearing whatever on the monopolies and merger issues—it would be my wish to publish this as soon as possible. However, it would not be appropriate to do so until the issues raised by the report have been fully considered.

Business of the House
3.4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the motion in the name of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos set down for 1st February shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read

599
a second time. The Bill makes changes of a minor but useful nature to three areas of law; the law relating to deeds, the law relating to formalities for contracts for the sale or other disposition of land, and the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. The three substantive clauses in the Bill derive from recommendations made by the Law Commission in three separate reports: Deeds and Escrows, Formalities for Contracts for the sale or other disposition of land and The Rule in Bain v. Fothergill.
Clause 1 of the Bill makes changes to the law relating to deeds. At present, if an individual needs to execute a deed, he must sign, seal and deliver it. Sealing is, for most people, a meaningless formality. They do not have a seal, and the deed is sealed by sticking a small circle of red paper on it, or simply by drawing a circle. Not only is the requirement meaningless; it has also given rise to argument in the courts as to precisely what it is necessary to do in order to seal a deed. The Law Commission has recommended that for individuals, sealing should no longer be a requirement. Corporate seals are not affected by this change.
The commission considered that signing and delivery alone would not be sufficient formalities to ensure that a person executing a deed was aware of the importance of what he was doing. It therefore recommended, and the clause gives effect to this recommendation, that the signature of the person making the deed should have to be witnessed and attested. This is in fact the usual practice now. Generally, only one witness is to be required; however, where the person making the deed does not sign it himself but, perhaps because of physical incapacity, he asks someone else to sign it at his direction, two witnesses will be required. The second additional formality is that it should be clear on the face of it that the document is intended to be a deed.
The fact that a document is a deed can have important consequences. For example, in English law a promise to make a gift is normally unenforceable, but it becomes enforceable if made by deed. The Bill does not lay down any prescribed manner of making it clear that a document is intended to be a deed but it does suggest various ways of doing this. It is undesirable to lay down just one method because to do so would invalidate what would otherwise be perfectly acceptable deeds merely for failure to include one vital word.
Clause 1 also abolishes the rule that a deed must be written on paper or parchment. The Law Commission considered that this rule was unnecessary and might inhibit the development of new substances. It considered recommending a rule that deeds should be made on a durable substance, but this goes further than the present law since paper is clearly not necessarily durable and, again, such a rule might invalidate what would otherwise be a perfectly acceptable deed.
Delivery is another aspect of the law relating to deeds which has given rise to confusion."Delivery" does not necessarily involve the physical handing over of the deed. Delivery takes place when the person making the deed by his act or word makes it
600
clear that he regards it as binding on him. Although recognising the difficulties caused by delivery, the Law Commission did not recommend any major changes to it, and the clause leaves untouched the law as to what constitutes delivery.
The clause does however make two changes to the law of delivery. It abolishes the rule of law that for a person to deliver a deed on behalf of another he must be given authority by deed. This does not mean that in future the person delivering the deed need not be given proper authority. It simply removes the requirement that the authority be given by deed. This has proved to be an inconvenient rule which serves little purpose. Its effect is that if, at present, a person signs and seals a deed and gives it to his solicitor to await completion of some transaction he has in fact delivered it, at the latest, when he gives it to his solicitor. His solicitor cannot deliver it for him, unless authorised by deed to do so. It, therefore, at that point becomes binding on him, even if it does not take effect until the completion of the transaction.
The removal of the rule will enable the person to sign and seal a deed and hand it to his solicitor for delivery at a later date without having to execute a further deed giving his solicitor authority to deliver. This provision in the clause is complemented by a further provision that, where an instrument is delivered as a deed in the course of, or in connection with, a conveyancing transaction, the solicitor or licensed conveyancer who delivers it shall be conclusively presumed, in favour of the purchaser, to have authority to deliver the instrument.
None of these changes affects instruments delivered as deeds before the section comes into force. It is necessary to consider whether certain forms of deeds prescribed by statute will require alteration before this section comes into force, so the Bill provides that it will not come into force until I make a commencement order. I do not expect a long delay before commencement.
Clause 2 makes changes to the law relating to formalities for contracts for the sale or other disposition of land. At present the requirements are contained in Section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925. This states that contracts must either be made in writing or, if made orally, must be evidenced in writing. The writing must be signed by the person to be sued. The requirements for writing do not apply if the contract has been partly performed. This provision has given rise to considerable difficulties. Its effect is that oral contracts for the sale of land are binding but unenforceable by action. They may be enforceable by other methods, for example, forfeiture of a deposit. Further, the party who has not signed the necessary writing may be safe from being sued upon the contract while at the same time retaining the option of suing the other person who has signed the writing.
The Law Commission recommended that contracts for the sale or other disposition of land should not be valid unless they are made in writing and that writing is signed by all the parties to the contract. The clause gives effect to that recommendation. It was made after wide-ranging consultation by the commission. It seems right that

601
contracts as important as contracts for the sale or other disposition of land be in writing. The clause removes the possibility of an oral, binding, but unenforceable contract. It ensures that all the parties to a contract must sign it. The clause has been drafted so as not to interfere with the usual practice of exchanging contracts.
Clause 3 abolishes the rule of law known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. This rule, which dates from the 19th century, limits the damages that a purchaser can obtain if a vendor is in breach of his contract to give a good title to land either because he has no title or because his title is defective. The rule dates from a time when proving title to land was extremely difficult and it was thought unfair to impose upon a vendor the burden of paying substantial damages when he failed to prove a good title to the land. The rule has been much criticised and the courts have developed many exceptions to it. After the Law Commission published a working paper which suggested its abolition, the Court of Appeal expressly approved the suggestion. Now that registration of title is widespread, and, where title to land is unregistered, the vendor has only to prove title by going back to a good root of title at least 15 years old, there is no good reason why a purchaser should suffer the loss if a vendor enters into a contract to sell land with good title and then cannot prove that he has such a title.
The clause therefore abolishes the rule. It does not prevent the vendor from including express provisions in a contract to limit his liability if he cannot prove his title. It may be that in certain very rare cases a vendor will not be willing or able to contract to sell a good title. However, he will have to make express provision to that effect and the purchaser will thereby be warned and advised about the dangers of entering into such a contract.
Clause 4 deals with repeals of a consequential nature. Clause 5 deals with commencement provisions. The provisions relating to deeds, for reasons I have explained, are subject to a commencement order. The other provisions are to come into force at the end of the period of two months from Royal Assent. Clause 6 as usual, contains the Short Title and extent.
This Bill contains three useful and uncontroversial measures of law reform, all of which I believe, have attracted the support of the legal profession. We are all grateful to the Law Commission for the careful work which went into the preparation of the reports on which the Bill is based. I accordingly ask the House to give the measure a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—[The Lord Chancellor].
3.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for taking us through the provisions of this short Bill. We hear a great deal about the need to simplify documents relating to the sale of land and houses. Although the Bill, as the Lord Chancellor has explained, is not confined to deeds relating to the sale of land it will help in a small way to achieve the
602
well-supported objective of simplifying such documents.
The noble and learned Lord has explained that the Bill enshrines the recommendations of the Law Commission. We too thank the Law Commission for its excellent work. I believe that the recommendations of the Law Commission have taken into account some of the criticisms of the commission's working papers, but I have not been able to obtain the views of the relevant professional bodies on the contents of the Bill and I do not know whether all of its provisions are wholly to the commission's satisfaction.
The Bill widens the substances on which deeds may be written. That will be a useful provision, particularly if new substances are discovered which may prevent deeds from being damaged or destroyed by fire or floods. That will be useful. Sealing will no longer be necessary. Although that will make no practical difference to the professional world, it may simplify matters if individuals wish to draw up their own deeds.
Delivery will be retained. There are two views about whether it should be retained. On balance I believe it is right that it should be retained; otherwise a document would bind the signing party immediately he signs the document although that was not his intention. I accept that there is another view. I accept also that some charities are concerned that delivery has been retained.
I am sure that your Lordships will be greatly relieved by the Lord Chancellor's assurance that a signature remains a requirement. But as the Bill stands that signature will have to be witnessed as and from the commencement day or the appointment day. That is new. Under existing law, attestation is not strictly necessary. I understand through my noble friend Lord Mishcon that this matter is of some concern to the charities.
I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord has drawn particular attention to the new provision in Clause 1(3) which permits an individual to direct someone else to sign on his behalf provided that two witnesses are present to attest the document. This, in our view, is a change of significance. I have a feeling that there may be an issue here. Should not the witnesses be independent and not related to the individual who is directed to sign the deed? How great is the risk of this method of execution of documents being abused or exploited?
I shall trespass for half a minute and no more to remind the House that the Bill comes here at a time when there is a large and continuing growth in the number of very elderly and frail persons, some of whom may be suffering from memory loss or a degree of dementia but are not wards of the Court of Protection, even though they own their own homes. The question of how that considerable section of the community—and a growing section—is to be protected against exploitation when dealing with their homes raises a significant and worrying issue. The Bill was not addressed to that problem but we believe that it is one which departments must face.
I return to the Bill. The need for a Section 40 memorandum agreement in respect of the sale of land

603
to be signed by the party to be charged has been much criticised. We are glad that the section is to be repealed. Henceforth, there must be a document signed by all the parties to the transaction, thus avoiding the unfair result that where only one party has signed only that party is bound by the agreement.
According to the Bill that document may refer to another document. We wonder whether it may refer to more than one document. It is clear from the Bill that the doctrine of part performance will no longer apply, but we assume that the doctrine of estoppel will still be available where appropriate.
I turn to deal briefly with the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. It was formulated under another name about two centuries ago because of the then difficulty of proving title of land, land being the oldest thing on earth. Although the ancient rule is not without its modern defenders, we believe that its repeal will be widely welcomed. It is out of date.
I must consult my noble friends on the Front Bench in order to consider whether abolishing the rule provides a wholly satisfactory solution where there is a chain of vendor, purchaser and sub-purchaser. If the vendor's title is defective, will he henceforth be liable for damages right down the line? That is a point on which this one-time solicitor would be grateful for guidance.
It is also for consideration whether the Bill should have enshrined in statute the current conveyancing practice of deducing title at the same time as the draft contract is being sent to the purchaser. That would enable the purchaser adequately to investigate the title and raise all inquiries before committing himself. If that were acceptable it would reduce the delays, which is another important objective. However, I must consult my noble friends about whether to press the matter on your Lordships.
We welcome the Bill in general. Plainly the professional bodies must give the fullest publicity to its provisions so that their members should be in no doubt as to the correct advice which they must give when the Bill is enacted. It may also be necessary for charities to consider some of the changes which the Bill will effect.
With those few words, I am pleased to support and welcome the Bill in principle.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I also welcome the Bill. It is another example of the debt which we owe to the Law Commission. The setting up of the Law Commissions in this country and in Scotland was one of the greatest steps in legal reform in the history of our country. Last evening I read through the three short reports which are the foundation of the Bill. As it is not within my sphere of the law I had forgotten about the rule of Bain v. Fothergill until I revised my recollection last evening.
The arguments are set out in the reports. The footnotes indicate all the consultations that have taken place and the bodies which have been consulted. The whole process of law reform has been radically changed by the method of the Law
604
Commission. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to a question which might be controversial. It is whether attestation was required for the signature on a deed. At paragraph 2.12 of its report (No. 163) the Law Commission dealt with the matter in this way:
"Almost all of those who responded to the working paper were in favour of obligatory attestation of deeds. The imposition of this requirement will not in fact be a change in present practice, as deeds are nearly always attested now".
The commission goes on to state that it endeavoured to formalise the present practice. In an economical way it dealt in detail with the argument which was advanced today by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
It occurred to me that because we set up the Law Commission we should change our procedure in this House, and they could change it in another place, in order to deal particularly with Bills that have been carefully researched and prepared and where soundings have been taken by the Law Commission. They appear to be in a different category from Bills that normally come before your Lordships' House. Perhaps that is a subject for another debate at another time.
The first report is the foundation for Clause 1. It is right—and the arguments have been expressly set out in the report—that delivery should remain one of the essential formalities for the execution of a deed. Often people sign a document and do not intend it to be effective until it is delivered. I believe that the Law Commission was right in coming down in favour of retaining delivery.
It is interesting to note that the drafting of Clause 1 of the Bill follows closely the draft of the Law Commission. Clause 2 is probably in practice the most far-reaching reform in the Bill. All noble Lords have been acquainted with the litigation which has been such a good source of remuneration to the legal profession over the years and which arises from the provisions of Section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925. For many years there has been pressure for reform and change of the provisions contained in that section.
A simple repeal of Section 40 has been considered. In its report the Law Commission sets out its reasons for rejecting the suggestion of simple abolition, attractive though it may have been on the surface. The reform abolishes the notion with which we have always lived: of a binding contract for the sale of land but unenforceable. I believe that the reform will simplify the law. It is a proper provision that all the terms must be in writing. There ought to be formality in the law so that when somebody is entering into a contract for the sale of land they are entitled to have the terms set out in writing. I believe that to be essential. It is interesting to note that the drafting of Clause 2 is different from the draft in the Law Commission's report.
The last provision of the Bill deals with the abolition of the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. I was not aware of the fact that there was a modern school of thought in favour of the retention of that rule. Perhaps there will be a discussion on the subject. The Law Commission sounded out the professions about

605
the matter and had extensive consultations. When there is a scheme of composite reform, such as that put forward by the Law Commission after proper consultations, it would be wrong for us to interfere by means of a chance amendment which may enjoy favour at a certain stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
Again, the draft of the Bill was somewhat different to the Bill which your Lordships' House is considering today. For personal reasons, I prefer the draft Bill because that sets out what is the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. I can imagine in future generations, when Bain v. Fothergill has largely disappeared from the law books, that it would be helpful to have the first clause of the draft Bill which states:
"There is hereby abolished the rule of law (known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill) restricting the damages recoverable for breaches of contract occasioned by defects in title to land".
It sets out what it was and states that it is to be abolished, which seems to me to be an advantage.
However, these are obviously very desirable reforms and I hope that this Bill ends its journey through your Lordships' House unamended.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I wish to say quite a few words about two matters before us this afternoon; namely, the sealing of deeds and the abolition of the rule of law known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill.
Perhaps I may associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in complimenting the Law Commission on all the work it has done over the years. However, I wonder whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, recognises that what he has said about the changes in the Bill between the time when they left the Law Commission and today rather suggests that, however worthy the Bill may be, a Bill which comes from the Law Commission should not be treated as though it had arrived as a tablet of stone, but should be given all the scrutiny which your Lordships' House and the other place give to Bills before them.
On the question of the sealing of deeds, I altogether agree that the affixing or non-affixing of a wafer seal to a document which, by legal fiction, represents sealing and is one ingredient of the deed, at present is now so little regarded as to have brought the law into disrepute. It is widely seen as so much legal mummery and has caused great difficulties for judges who have wanted, on the one hand, to give effect to deeds which they considered worthy and to set aside other less worthy unsealed transactions in cases where evidence that a document was ever sealed is lacking.
Nevertheless, I hope that my noble and learned friend will not be so quick as he suggested to bring this Bill into force. The Law Commission has done a good hatchet job—if I may put it that way— on sealing in its report No. 163. However, I draw attention to paragraph 1.2 of the report which states:
"This report does not consider the need for deeds either generally or for particular transactions. It is confined to the formalities for deeds".
It seems to me that that is an unsatisfactory confession. The Law Commission should have considered what deeds do, and then whether the
606
ingredients of deed which will be left when this Bill is brought into effect will provide enougih legal magic to draw attention to the very real distinction which should exist between a deed and a document which is merely signed under hand. The Law Commission should have looked at the question of whether all or any of the distinctions in terms of effect or consequence which distinguish deeds from other documents should be maintained.
There are two particularly significant consequences which follow from the signing of a deed and which distinguish deeds from other documents. My noble and learned friend has drawn attention to the fact that a promise in a deed, unsupported by consideration, that is to say, a gratuitous and voluntary undertaking, may be enforced against the promisor by legal action. Also, under the statutes of limitation, the time to bring proceedings for breach of contract contained in the deed will generally be 12 rather than six years.
If that distinction between deeds and other documents is to continue, there must be some formal dignity attached to the making of a deed, otherwise we shall continue to meet difficult cases, and the need to decide whether a deed has in fact been made, just as now. Although in formal terms under this Bill the deed seems to have gained something in the need for witnessing and lost something by the abolition of sealing, I believe that on balance the loss will far exceed the gain because it has always been the recommended practice that deeds should be witnessed. One will also have to answer the man in the street who will ask, "What! Am I still liable after 10 years just because I put my name to a dirty scrap of paper rather than to another one almost like it?"
I hope that my noble and learned friend will give some thought to the question as to whether or not the substantive law should be reformed before these clauses are brought into operation. If it is decided that no reform or only partial reform is called for, perhaps I might suggest that additional formality for all or some deeds might be provided by the introduction to this country of some witnessing equivalent to notarial witnessing.
Signatures, including witnesses signatures, are sometimes forged, which presents real problems. It will be no bad thing if some deeds have to be witnessed by someone who is obliged to be satisfied as to the identity of the person signing, and there must be clear records to show how and the extent to which he is satisfied. I appreciate that that will create further red tape but, nevertheless, if special consequences are to follow the making of a deed it is surely right that we should consider whether or not special formalities should attend their creation.
The rule in Bain v. Fothergill has bothered me for 35 years. I welcome this chance to renew my acquaintance with it through reading the Law Commission report, and I am glad that it is to be abolished. Mr. Fothergill knew perfectly well that the lessors' consent to assign Miss Walter's royalty was needed and had not been obtained when he contracted to sell the royalty to Mr. Bain. He never bothered to tell Mr. Bain that. It has always seemed to me somewhat shocking that when, subsequently,

607
the lessors' refused consent Mr. Bain could not recover damages for the loss of his bargain. He was merely entitled to the return of his deposit, interest and expenses.
The rule meant that where it was necessary for a vendor to obtain a lessor's consent to an assignment to a purchaser, it was possible for a vendor who had repented his bargain when he realised he could get a better bargain, to persuade his lessor to refuse consent and thus to escape practically unscathed from his agreement.
It always seemed simple to me. A contract to sell land should be treated like any other contract. If the vendor knew that consent to the assignment was required and had not been obtained, he should provide in the contract for what would happen in the event of consent to the assignment never being given. That should be agreed with the purchaser. Then all would be well. There was no reason in those circumstances why a vendor in breach of contract should not pay full damages for the purchaser's loss of bargain, should the point arise.
I say that 35 years ago the rule in Bain v. Fothergill should have been abolished. The rule was born in earlier days, when title had to be shown for at least 60 years to unregistered land, as against the minimum of 15 years in the case of unregistered land today and no time at all in the case of registered land. There were also problems in the proof and examination of title which have gradually been swept away by a long series of land law reforms, culminating in the 1925 Law of Property Act. The rule was originally handed down by the judges in order to deal with conveyancing problems and defecting titles which arose in title deeds which were, in words attributed to Lord Westbury:
"difficult to read, disgusting to touch and impossible to understand".
The rule reflected the need of conveyancers and their clients in those days.
Therefore, as I understand it, conveyancing was altogether a different practice then. The contract was not what it became many years ago. It was a somewhat provisional agreement to sell and to buy, but always subject to what would now seem the curious proviso that the contract would be all right so long as, after contracts were exchanged, it was possible to prove the title.That rule was founded not on absolute principles, but it was a rule of convenience based on conveyancing conditions which have long since passed away.
The statement of noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on a judicial precedent in the House of Lords was in 1966. The appellate Committee recognised that,
"too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case".
Since then the House of Lords has been able, in the exceptional case,
"to depart from decisions when it appears right to do so".
I submit that a case turning on the rule in Bain v. Fothergill should have been before the Appellate Committee years ago to give the Law Lords a chance to overturn the rule. It is very much to be regretted
608
that during the past 21 years no case has been dragged from the courts of first instance to the Appellate Committee for that very purpose.
I have to tell the House that I note that even the rule in Bain v. Fothergill started in the Court of Exchequer. It was then affirmed without argument in the Exchequer Chamber so that the matter might be brought directly to your Lordships' House. However, I have to say that the original judgment in the Exchequer Court was on 15th November 1870 and the speeches of the Lords of Appeal were delivered three and a half years later on 22nd June 1874. 1 might also add that Mr. Fothergill exchanged contracts for the purchase of Miss Walter's Royalty and other properties in August 1863 and that the purchase had not been completed on 17th October 1867, four years later, when Fothergill entered into his contract with Bain.
It is not just that the Appellate Committee, following the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, could have disposed of Bain v. Fothergill the sooner. It would have enabled the old monster to be disposed by reasoned speeches within the courts of the common law. That would have laid down precedent to assist in the understanding of the decision and the further development of the law.
To legislate simply in the terms of Clause 3 of the Bill—
"The rule of law known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill is abolished"—
may be economical in words, and for that we should be grateful, but it may create its own chaos if there is question as to what exactly it is that has been abolished, and there will be no speeches of Law Lords to assist future judges in their interpretation of the bald words of statute.
I know what the rule is which is known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. It is a rule which prohibits an award of damages for loss of bargain in contracts for disposals of land. For the future, a court which on general principles awards such damages will not need to withhold them because of the rule. That is clear and I do not wish to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the legislation we are considering. I want merely to draw attention to the fact that difficulty of interpretation may result from this type of legislation. The rule known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill is not in fact the rule in Bain v. Fothergill; it is a rule derived from the 1776 case of Flureau v. Thornhill and has been subsequently mulled over by academics and pulled about in a number of cases ending with a mauling in the maggot farm case heard by the Court of Appeal two years ago, to which my noble and learned friend referred.
In Bath v. Fothergill itself there are 40 pages of speeches. Paragraph 4.1 of the Law Commission Working Paper says that the rule is uncertain both in its scope and in its application. There has been uncertainty as to the wording of the clause in this Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred, because in the draft Bill as appended to the Law Commission report additional words, which are not now before us, described the rule as,
"restricting the damages recoverable for breaches of contract occasioned by defects in title to land".

609
I wonder whether the draftsman eventually decided that the words were too broad, too restrictive, or both; or simply too dangerous to entrust to the courts to interpret.
It may be that there is an actual rule to be found in the speeches in Bain v. Fothergill. The special circumstances of that case were that the vendor was aware of the defect of title. Can it not be argued that we are now abolishing a limited rule which provides that damages for loss of bargain are not to be awarded where the vendor is aware of the defect of title?
This is not merely a debating point. There is a case for arguing—your Lordships have heard it referred to—that Bain v. Fothergill should not be entirely disregarded and that this is as far as we should go. It can be argued that where some totally unforeseen and unforeseeable defect of title is turned up there should be no damages for loss of bargain but merely a return of the parties, so far as possible, to where they were before contracts were exchanged. After all, the standard printed contracts for the sale of land, which are generally used or adapated for most sales and are designed to strike a fair balance between vendor and purchaser, provide for a vendor to have the right to rescind the contract if the purchaser persists in an objection to the title which the vendor shall be unable or unwilling, on reasonable grounds, to remove; and in the case of such a rescission the vendor is to return the deposit—no more—and the purchaser is to return the papers and the abstract.
It is clear to me that the effect of abolishing the rule must in general in future include the need for lawyers to devote much more time before contract to consideration of title, possible defects of title and what to do about them. I do not suggest that that will be a bad thing—quite the contrary—but it will tend to lengthen the time between agreement in principle for the sale of land and the exchange of contracts. I am sure that we are all agreed that it is in this period that the speeding up of conveyancing practices is required.
In my view this points to the absolute need for house owners to instruct their solicitors immediately they have decided to sell their properties. They should not leave it so that the first a solicitor learns of an impending sale is when he receives a memorandum of the agreed terms from the estate agent.
Purchasers too should learn new disciplines. This is not yet well recognised, but when a purchaser is pleased by a house he should at once instruct his solicitor. He should ask the agents whether a contract would be ready to sign, should price be agreed, whether a copy of the lease can be inspected at once and, indeed, who will be acting for the vendor in a sale: will it be solicitors, licensed conveyancers, the vendor himself, or perhaps in the future some other Tom Noddy?
Incompetence by conveyancing practitioners other than one's own can be extremely damaging. Here I mention the words of the learned Vice-Chancellor, Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson, in the recent case of Hall v. Eade which was reported in The Times only last Thursday. A purchaser had not been represented by a lawyer. Difficulties had arisen and a lawyer had
610
not been consulted in time. The purchaser had become involved in a substantial liability for costs. The Vice-Chancellor is reported as saying that it was important that the public should appreciate that when matters got into the realm of dispute it was not always appropriate to be advised otherwise than by a solicitor. The point I particularly make here in concluding is that undoubtedly not just the purchaser but the vendor also suffered (anyone involved in litigation suffers) because his purchaser was not advised by a lawyer.
3.49 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the general reception accorded the Bill and for the acknowledgment of the work carried out by the Law Commission including the method by which it works which, I agree, has very much changed this particular approach to law reform. Governments also have learned from the techniques of the Law Commission on how to proceed in such matters.
I wish to refer briefly to one or two topics that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the point about elderly and infirm persons executing deeds and asked whether some protection is required. My noble friend Lord Coleraine mentioned the possibility of material execution in this context. In this country so far that system has not been invoked. I believe it is thought that reliance on the law as regards undue influence and fraud is probably sufficient protection.
The next question to be raised was whether the provision that enables reference to be made to another document would allow reference to more than one. I believe that the Interpretation Act would apply to this. Accordingly, it will be possible to have the necessary words in more than one other document.
I believe that there is nothing in the Bill to affect the operation of the doctrine of estoppel. I believe that if one had a succession of contracts all in terms that did not in any way exclude liability for defect in title, then there would be a liability right down the line. It would be a condition of each of these contracts in the line that the title passing should be good. If that was breached by the first vendor then his purchaser would have an action against him and so on down the line. I believe that to be just. If someone down the line was anxious about the matter, perhaps concerning the solvency of someone further up the line, then under the rules now proposed it would be open to make some exception or provision in the contractual arrangements to cover that.
The general view that the Law Commission proposals should receive a speedy passage is an interesting one. I believe that I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, propose previously that there might be a special parliamentary system for dealing with Law Commission Bills. Having regard to the amount of consultation that goes into these matters, it is a very reasonable suggestion. However, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine said, Parliament likes to scrutinise for itself and not delegate these responsibilities to any other. I fear therefore that it may be some little time before the noble Lord's proposals come into effect.

611
As regards the clause dealing with the rule in Bain v. Fothergill, if there was real doubt as to what the rule was and one is abolishing it, there is not much harm in not trying to specify it. I believe this to be perhaps the wiser course. There may be matters for further consideration at later stages of the Bill. In the meantime I believe that your Lordships are very strongly of the view that the Bill should be given a Second Reading. Therefore it is with some confidence that I put the question.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [H.L.]
3.53 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Abolition of special licences for driving HGVs and PSVs]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("(2A) Any of the following proceedings pending at the appointed day, that is to say—

(a) any application questioning the conduct of a test of competence to drive under section 115 of the 1988 Act. and

(b) any reconsideration by, or appeal from, a licensing authority under section 116 of the 1988 Act or section 23 of the 1981 Act,

may be continued and, as the case may be, any order relative to the test (of fees) made or licence issued notwithstanding the repeals made by this Act and any order of eligibility to take a test so made shall be treated as relating to a corresponding test and any heavy goods vehicle or public service vehicle driver's licence so issued shall be treated as an existing licence.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is needed to enable proceedings that are pending when the legislation comes into force to continue notwithstanding the fact that the provisions on which the proceedings are founded have been repealed. The provision will allow the proceedings to continue and the final decision to be implemented. Licences issued by virtue of this amendment will be treated as existing licences even though they may be issued after the provisions of the Bill come into force. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Existing HGV and PSV Drivers' Licences]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 2:
>Page 21, line 6, at end insert—
612
("(4) Before making any regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State must consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment inserts the statutory requirement that interested organisations be consulted before any regulations relating to existing licences are made. 1 beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: It is a small point and I do not remember noticing it in legislation before. The amendment says,
"Before making any regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State must consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.".
The Minister may believe that there are no organisations that he wishes to consult with. Therefore it seems illogical that one must consult with an organisation if he chooses none. I wonder whether the Minister will look at this point? The phraseology seems rather odd.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure I can envisage the situation where my right honourable friend would find no-one with whom he would need to consult on this kind of matter. This same requirement applies already to regulations made under the Road Traffic Act 1988. We believe it appropriate that similar arrangements should be made in this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("driving").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. The reference to "driving" is superfluous. The correct reference is simply to,
"an existing Northern Ireland licence"
as defined in paragraph (1) and used elsewhere in this provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions inserted in Road Traffic Act 1988]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 25. line 28, leave out ("that section") and insert ("section 116 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: The reference in Section 118(2)(a) to Section 115 of the Act is inaccurate. The amendment substitutes the correct reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Exceptions to prohibition on driving without a licence]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4. line 29, at end insert—
("but a disqualification which does not prevent the person disqualified from obtaining a provisional licence or, as the case may be, a licence corresponding to a provisional licence is relevant to a full licence but not to a provisional licence.").

613
The noble Lord said: This amendment to Clause 3 clarifies the circumstances in which a licence disqualification is relevant to an application for a licence. It ensures that a disqualified driver is not able to obtain a full licence on the strength of a provisional licence obtained while disqualified from obtaining a full licence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
4 p.m.
Clause 4[Tests of competence and related conditions of entitlement to driving licence]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 22, at end insert:
("Immediate authorisation to drive of persons who have passed a passenger-carrying vehicle test.
(5) After section 89 of the 1988 Act there shall he inserted the following section which shall come into force at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
89B—(1) Any person who has passed a test of competence to drive a passenger-carrying vehicle shall be issued with a written authorisation in the form prescribed permitting him to drive a passenger-carrying vehicle on a road for the purposes of carrying passengers for hire or reward.
(2) The written authorisation referred to in subsection (1) above shall be issued by the person conducting the test immediately after the completion of the test.").
The noble Lord said: 1 should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 59. I must claim a small, long-standing interest in the bus industry. The object of the amendment is simple. It seeks to put a driver who has passed a passenger service vehicle driving test in just the same position as any other driver who has passed his driving test. If a person passes an ordinary driving test he is given a written authorisation to drive immediately. This is not so with a PSV test, where one has to wait for one's licence to come through from the traffic commissioners. Unfortunately operators all over the country are experiencing considerable delays in trained drivers receiving their licences. At best it is about four weeks. A most extreme example was eight weeks. Let us say that four weeks to six weeks is the norm. These drivers then have to be found other work to do during this waiting period.
One example of where problems can be caused is when an operator wins a large batch of tender services from a county council or a passenger transport executive. The operator has sufficient vehicles and an adequate operator's licence but needs PSV drivers. It is often the case that a large operator trains as full PSV drivers existing employees who are minibus drivers but then cannot meet the deadline for the start of his contract because of the delays in his drivers receiving their licences.
The Committee may recall that I referred to this problem during the Bill's Second Reading debate. My noble friend Lord Brabazon indicated that the point would be satisfied by the Bill by amending Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988. My understanding of the position is that the provisions of the Bill will not come into effect until 1991. I received this impression during an extremely interesting visit with other noble Lords to the Driving and Vehicle
614
Licensing Centre at Swansea. The visit, arranged by my noble friend, was a breath of fresh air. I mean no disrespect to the traffic commissioners who are probably still operating on the steam-driven system. The DVLC has an efficient and competent computer system. We were all very impressed by the visit.
While the weather was perfectly filthy in London, somewhere between Swansea and Bridgend the clouds broke and we were then in absolute sunshine, which I believe is rather rare for Wales. We were looked after very well. The people we saw were keen and we had every confidence that the HGV and PSV licensing would be well looked after there. Previous thoughts of the DVLC being a soulless body were driven straight out of the window. One has extreme confidence in it.
The object of my amendment is to bridge the gap between the Bill becoming law, which I anticipate will be fairly soon, and 1991. Perhaps my noble friend is concerned that the early introduction of the Bill will cause problems in regard to checking that drivers are fit and proper persons and are medically fit. I should point out that the problem is no more troublesome now than it will be in 1991. The figures involved are small. The traffic commissioners' annual report of 31st March 1987 shows that 23,759 licences were granted and only five were refused for reasons of character. Those figures are minimal and are very much better than one ever deemed possible.
The Committee will see that in the amendment I have allowed a period of one month from the date the Bill receives Royal Assent to allow my noble friend to prescribe the form of the written authorisation to drive that will be given to the person when he or she passes the test. My noble friend may think that this is not long enough to complete the process. I shall not be opposed to a reasonable extension of the time if the principle of the amendment is accepted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: I have great pleasure in adding my name to that of my noble friend Lord Teviot in supporting his amendment to Clause 4. I must declare an interest as a consultant to Richardson's Developments, which developed the Merry Hill Centre in the Black Country. It is one of the largest and most successful shopping centres in the United Kingdom. As this superb example of private enterprise has expanded it has added to its fleet of public service vehicles which operate over a wide area in the locality. However, if it is to continue finding new jobs in the region—not only in the retail sector—a more streamlined system of licensing must be introduced, not only for it but for hundreds of other operators across the country.
I support the amendment because it is clear to me that the present position cannot be tolerated by transport operators. The delay involved between the passing of the test and the issuing of a full badge is most unsatisfactory. Unlike car drivers who are immediately issued by their examiner with a pink slip which entitles them to drive unaccompanied from that moment on, PSV drivers who have successfully taken the test cannot drive a PSV vehicle for hire or reward for up to 14 days—and in some cases much longer—until such time as a badge has been issued.

615
The information I have from both Merry Hill and West Midlands Travel, a major bus operator which has in excess of 1,700 vehicles and employs more than 3,000 drivers in the West Midlands, is that in the West Midlands region delays of up to 10 days and much more between passing the test and being issued with a badge are being experienced at present. However, I am advised that these delays are often much longer in many other parts of the country. They can extend up to six weeks or longer in certain cases. These companies are finding that they have to constrain recruitment. West Midlands Travel currently has 90 vacancies for drivers because congestion in the present system remains unresolved.
Since deregulation, matters have considerably worsened in a climate created to enhance transport services to the public. Competition produced by deregulation has meant that operators are employing many more potential drivers, a large number of whom are recruited from the ranks of the unemployed. At Merry Hill, for example, out of 50 drivers recruited and trained to take the test since April 1988, some 55 per cent. were previously on the unemployment register. Thus the industry is more than playing its part in the Government's fight for full employment.
Is it really fair to draw such a distinction between PSV drivers and car drivers? Both have passed their tests and are therefore considered to be competent vehicle operators. Yet the PSV driver still has to face a delay until he or she can drive passengers for hire or reward. In the meantime, while the successful PSV driver is in a state of limbo, his employer can pay him only the trainee's rate of pay. In addition, the qualified trainee in this period can be employed to drive a vehicle for hire or reward only while there is an existing badge holder in attendance. This costs the employer nearly double while he waits for a badge to be issued by the licensing office to the trainee driver who has passed his test.
The present position causes not only many unnecessary difficulties, both financially and operationally, for the industry as a whole but problems among the workforce as the standard of recruit needed is very high. If drivers, once they have obtained their qualifications, are able to be on only a trainee's rate of pay they are bound to feel frustration and resentment. Indeed, it makes it a considerably more difficult task for the operators to recruit the right type of person for the job. That cannot be right. It is unfair to the employer, to the employee and to the customer. Moreover, the financial cost which is wasted is quite deplorable—not to mention the time and effort which could be utilised in a much more beneficial way.
My information is that it costs an employer a figure of between £500 and £800 to train up a potential public service vehicle driver. Further, to my knowledge there are no training grants available at present. This is a considerable investment for employers to make throughout the industry and yet delays on the applications for the tests, and the issuing of badges, are becoming worse. For example, I understand that in my area in the West Midlands,
616
before last Christmas, the licensing office in Broad Street, Birmingham, closed for two weeks to enable its staff to clear the backlog. Yet the cost of applying for a test has gone up considerably to £42.
The capital cost of minibuses is not cheap. To put one vehicle on the road, complete with ticketing equipment, costs in the region of £25,000. The amendment tabled by my noble friend would have a most beneficial effect in many ways. First, if the examiner were able to issue the successful examinee with a certificate on passing the test which would enable the driver to operate a vehicle immediately, as car drivers can, that would cut expense for the industry. It would also reduce wastage of quality manpower and would improve services for the general public.
Secondly, it would reduce the administrative workload of both the industry and the Department of Transport's licensing offices, which are under a considerable amount of pressure at present. It would further justify the recent rise in the test fee.
I cannot see that the amendment proposed could possibly cause any detrimental effect. It could only improve vastly on the present situation. With deregulation the industry has been given a climate in which it can improve and succeed. However, it must be in a position to attract, train and retain a quality workforce. The amendment goes a long way in helping to provide the tools for the job. I therefore strongly urge Members of the Committee to consider the amendment and give it their support.
Lord Underhill: I should like briefly to say from this Dispatch Box that the two noble Lords who introduced the amendment did so in an excellent manner. Moreover, unless the Minister can give some sound reason as to why the amendment should not be approved, we shall be disposed to endorse it.
Perhaps I may also say that I and my colleague appreciated the invitation which the Minister extended to visit the DVLC. We do not have the slightest doubt that when the whole relicensing under the Bill comes into effect the DVLC will be able to function efficiently. What we saw there was extremely well worth seeing and I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said.
However, if there is a delay occurring at present in drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles being able to take up their job quickly—it is most essential that they should do so in many areas—the Minister must give a sound reason as to why he cannot accept the amendment. If the wording needs improvement, I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will readily agree to change the wording on Report.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I fully appreciate the object of my noble friend's amendment. The changes that he is seeking are not necessary, as I think he said in his opening remarks. The application of the provisions of Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to vocational licences will mean that provisional licences may be issued for drivers seeking to drive passenger-carrying vehicles. The conditions attached to this provisional entitlement will be conveyed in regulations to be

617
made under the Bill. These conditions will be suspended when the driver has passed the appropriate test and he may drive as a full licence holder until he obtains his full licence. I can assure my noble friends that we do not wish to have drivers who have passed their test sitting around until their full licence appears.
The problem with the current situation—that is, until the new system comes into effect—is that there is no provisional licence for PCV drivers. Their fitness to hold a licence on the basis of conduct and other grounds needs to be checked before a licence is issued by the traffic commissioners. That will disappear with the new system and PCV drivers should be on all fours with all other drivers.
The delays in traffic areas are being tackled through the provision of additional resources. We hope that that will remove the delays in the short term. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teviot: I am afraid that my noble friend only thinks I will withdraw the amendment. However, I shall give him just one more chance. The Bill will not come into effect until 1991. Is he or is he not going to give me what I want? Will the proposal which I put forward—and the second one contained in Amendment No. 59—with the provision of the one-month period after Royal Assent, be allowed? Can he see his way clearly to allowing me to do this? I had an assurance from Swansea that under the existing Bill that provision will become part of the test in 1991. However, I do not think that the industry can possibly afford to wait for that situation to occur. If my noble friend can assure me on that point, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I explained a moment ago that there are problems with the existing system which make change difficult. However, I shall look into the matter to see whether anything can be done in the short term. Perhaps between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings I can be in touch with my noble friend.
Lord Teviot: As my noble friend has said that, I can do nothing but agree. However, it will be between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings, and I shall go no further while the Bill is in this place. I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he said. I have at least achieved that. In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Refusal or revocation of licences on grounds of physical fitness]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 49, at end insert—
("(8A) In section 96 of the 1988 Act (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight). the following subsection shall he inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Persons aged 70 and over who are in possession of a valid driving licence shall have their eyesight tested at least once
618
in every two years; and if they drive with uncorrected defective eyesight, they are guilty of an offence.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment I tabled as set out on the Marshalled List is self-explanatory. However, I feel that I must read to the Committee the section of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which relates to the definition of eyesight. Section 96(1) provides:
"If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such (whether through a defect which cannot be or one which is not for the time being sufficiently corrected) that he cannot comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under this Part of this Act for the purposes of tests of competence to drive, he is guilty of an offence".
I want to bring that point out at the beginning of my remarks in case my noble friend tells me that that obligation is already in the Act. I am perfectly clear that it is in the Act that your eyesight should be corrected and that you should be assured of your good vision in terms of driving. However, I am equally clear that many people really do not know that their eyesight is defective. I told Members of the Committee on Second Reading about a noble Lord—now deceased—who showed me his car and pointed out that it was in pristine condition, when in fact it was all crumpled up. I believe that there are many people who imagine that their eyesight is satisfactory. It is possible that it has deteriorated gradually and they are not aware of the fact.
My choice of the age of 70 is a purely arbitrary one. I am prepared to concede whatever age my noble friend the Minister considers appropriate, because there must be statistics which show at what age most eyesight defects develop. But in the time that I have sat as a magistrate, since 1971, I have never had any evidence brought forward in the case of a road traffic accident as to whether either of the drivers involved had had any problem with eyesight. In fact, the discussion is almost always about the vehicles and which way they were turning. No one ever says, "Did you see this vehicle?", "Can you see?", or "What is your eyesight like?"
In my view, many accidents are caused by unrecognised eyesight problems. Therefore the suggestion that I put forward—this is a probing amendment to find out what sort of reaction there is to it—is designed to discover whether there is some particular age at which an eyesight test should be called for.
As regards the period of two years, I only chose that because under the national health scheme, in the days of free eyesight tests, you were allowed to have such a test only every two years. Therefore there must have been some research done on the subject to indicate that that was about the appropriate period between eyesight tests. I am not inflexible on the period or the age. I wish to draw attention to those people who are already driving and whose eyesight may not be as good as they think it is. It is relevant to the safety of other drivers that everyone should be concerned to make sure that their eyesight is adequate for driving.
I have met young people who have told me that, although they do not wear glasses for anything else, they have to wear them for driving. It is easy to pass one's test and have one's eyesight assessed at that time. If one is in normal health, a licence is given until

619
one is 70. No one ever follows up on one's eyesight from that date until one stops driving. I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment on the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may give some, admittedly muted, support to my friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I say "muted support" because my amendment follows this one. It is fair to agree with my noble friend that until some accident occurs many drivers do not realise that their eyesight has deteriorated to the point at which they are incapable of driving a motor vehicle. In the past seven to 10 years a number of studies have been undertaken which have established conclusively that that is so. During the passage of another Bill last year, I referred to the McKean and Edington report from Southampton University on the incidence of glaucoma. The survey was admittedly small but it showed that a large majority of people had not realised that they could not see to the left or the right, which was the reason for their accident. They were grateful that they were stopped from driving on medical advice or, as more frequently happened, as the result of advice from their friends or relatives. They relieved themselves of the burden of making the voluntary decision to stop driving.
My noble friend illustrated another point. While the 1988 Act, which she has quoted, provides that an offence is committed if a driver drives without correct sight, there is no provision for that sight to be checked. It is a self-appraisal system. It is important to remind the Committee that there is a requirement on the application for a driving licence, which now lasts until age 70 in the case of private vehicles, to apprise the medical division of the DVLC of any deterioration or material change in health.
Equally, when the insurance company renewal notice appears, there is a requirement to advise the company of any material difference in health or other circumstances from what was declared when the policy was first underwritten. Most people forget that requirement. Most people forget about the driving licence because they do not see it day by day. On receiving a renewal notice from the insurance company, most people compare the premium with that of the previous year and, if it is reasonable, they pay, and that is the end of that. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I disagree with my noble friend on the age limit contained in her amendment because I understand that most eye deterioration starts at about 45 years of age. A lower age level might be more appropriate, although I do not know what it should be. There should be a further and more positive requirement for a driver to undertake some kind of test. I shall describe what I want to happen when we debate the next amendment. Broadly speaking, I support the principle underlying the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Perhaps I may add a few words to what my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said. For many years as a magistrate in my
620
local court I have judged the consequences of road traffic accidents. I must admit that I cannot remember ever having asked a defendant what his eyesight was like, nor do I believe that any police officer did so. I have taken the trouble to ask three opticians their views on the number of patients who drive with impaired eyesight. All three of them have said that it is ridiculous and dangerous for some people to be going around, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, probably not even knowing that they cannot see and measure distance as accurately as those with correct eyesight. The amendment is important. I should like to lower the age by at least 20 years because that is what I have been advised. I shall certainly lend my support to the amendment.
Lord Underhill: All Members of the Committee will appreciate the intention behind the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Perhaps I should declare an interest. First, I am fast approaching the middle 70s. Secondly, as I believe most noble Lords know, I completely lost the sight of one eye about eight or nine years ago. My medical record is on my DVLC card. I saw it when we visited Swansea last week.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that a number of studies had shown the position to have been proved conclusively. On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Carmichael questioned whether a large number of accidents and injuries were due to defective eyesight. The Minister said:
"There is no evidence to suggest that the present arrangements are failing to meet the requirements for road safety".—[Official Report, 15/12/88; col. 1062.]
Is there conclusive evidence that eyesight failure is the cause of a considerable number of accidents? Is there conclusive evidence that defective eyesight is common at age 70 and not at a lower age? It is the same with a number of problems. I know people of 50, and it is questionable whether they should he on the road at all. I at least have gone through a medical examination and it has been proved that I am still capable of driving. That is the interest that I declare.
Will the Minister give a clear indication of the facts of the case, bearing in mind that we were astounded when we visited the DVLC to be told that 250,000 communications are received at the centre every day? If everyone aged 70 has to he reminded every two years that they must have a medical check and report it to the DVLC, another piece of paper will have to be produced—I treasure mine—showing whether one has permission to drive, and the DVLC will have an immense amount of extra work. However, if the Minister has evidence to justify the point, the amendment should be supported. Will the Minister give us facts to justify the conclusions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said have been divulged in a number of surveys?
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I had not intended to take part in this debate until 1 remembered that about three or four months ago I was driving a pony trap round my property and was nearly hit by an extremely nice man who cannot see where he is going. It seems to me that it is much easier to say to everybody, "You should

621
have a test above a certain age." That takes away the sting of losing your licence or whatever may happen, rather than the result being put upon somebody afterwards. I am not in any way making a criticism of the man in question, except that I was extremely frightened and nearly fell out—but then perhaps your Lordships might not have had the benefit of my unbounded wisdom. That is neither here nor yon, but 1 think there is a case for saying that at a certain age there should be a medical examination or an eyesight examination which applies to all, and then everybody knows it is going to happen. There is no stigma and no worry, and it is fair to everybody. It is very important that there should be no stigma attached to growing old, and that is why I would support some amendment along these lines.
Earl Attlee: I am some 15 years younger than the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Last year I was having an eye test and at the end of it I asked whether I should be wearing glasses when driving a car. The specialist said, "No, you are all right at the moment. but 1 think the next time you have your eyes tested, if there has been some deterioration then possibly you may need glasses". I do not think the age of 70 is the right age, or even the age of 50. I think perhaps that a nice round age such as 60 may be the right time for everyone to begin having their eyes tested before they drive.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I feel I should like to add just one word to this interesting debate because I am also of an age where my eyesight is not what it was and my oculist advises me that for driving I should wear glasses although 1 can see perfectly well to drive without them. The result is that I normally do wear glasses and there is no doubt about it that the image is just a little clearer, especially when driving fast on motorways. Therefore, any driver in those circumstances will appreciate a situation a split second faster and therefore take earlier corrective action or whatever may be needed at perhaps a critical moment and thus avoid an accident. There is no doubt a technical point here; but the point my noble friend has to deal with in facing this battery of argument that has come at him, is whether across the board there is enough evidence to justify requiring a specific test, or anything more than we have now.
That is really the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Any sensible person such as the noble Lord and, I hope, myself asks his or her oculist at a certain stage in their age development whether they should wear glasses for driving. I would suppose that happens often enough, so that not too many of us are driving around without being able to see properly. What we have to realise is that if we require the law to make it a legal requirement for everybody we are going to pose a very heavy administrative problem for the licence centre at Swansea, and of course for the medical profession and the oculists in giving all these tests. I am bound to say that I think my noble friend would need a great deal more evidence than he has up to date before he could possibly justify that.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Following on what my noble friend Lord Nugent has said, I have a feeling
622
that my noble friend the Minister will say that there really is not sufficient evidence to support what has been suggested. As my noble friend Lady Macleod has pointed out, the police do not in fact look into the question of a driver's eyesight at the time of an accident, and that is why the Ministry of Transport, whenever this point is raised, always says there is no evidence to support what is said. Perhaps the first thing would be for police officers, when there are accidents, to make it a regular thing always to test the eyesight of anybody involved. Then they will get the evidence in due course.
Lord Trafford: Before going any further, we have had two quite different bases for arguing about this amendment. The first was what is referred to as "defective eyesight", which can mean a large number of things. I think it would be nice to know—I am not certain myself—what is actually proposed in terms of the test. There are a large number of conditions of the eye, some of which are of course not correctable although the term "uncorrected" is used. Secondly, we have had the phrase "medical examination" used in rather the same terms. They are of course different things, and apart from the burden this would impose upon opticians, doctors or anybody else—that is to say the administrative burden, and the administration in the form of the licensing authorities has already been mentioned—there is also the definition of precisely what test one would be passing. For example, the normal thing about reading registration plates at a distance anybody can check for themselves, and most people know whether or not they can see well at a distance or whether they cannot read the London telephone directory because their arm is not long enough, which is a pretty good test of certain problems. But the fact remains that there are many other things that may not be detected on an ordinary test. So I would ask: what depth of test is actually envisaged by this term "uncorrected vision"? I think that is important, and perhaps it ought not to be confused with the term "medical examination", which of course is much wider.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had an interesting debate on this subject. We in the department recognise that after the age of 70, which is after all the age to which the amendment refers, health is likely to deteriorate in ways that might possibly affect driving and the driving licensing system takes account of the possible effects of increasing age. From that time licences are issued for only three years, and applicants are asked at regular intervals to declare any relevant medical condition, including any deterioration in eyesight. We therefore consider this amendment to be unnecessary.
As has been pointed out already, it is an offence now to drive at any age with eyesight which is known to be defective. Drivers are under a continuing obligation to report to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre if they become aware of the onset or the worsening of a health condition that might affect their fitness to drive safely. I might point out at this stage that each year there are around 300 convictions for eyesight offences.
When such notifications are received the centre will make medical inquiries and, in the light of those

623
inquiries, will take a decision about a future entitlement to drive. With the help of professional bodies, we try to ensure that doctors are well informed about the relevance to driving of certain medical conditions. Elderly people are more likely than others to see their doctors regularly and can be advised on their ability to drive.
Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and by my noble friend Lord Nugent, about evidence as to whether this is in fact a problem, research in this country and abroad has not shown any significant relationship between various eye defects and accidents. The research does not provide any justification for compulsory eyesight tests. There is no conclusive evidence therefore that eyesight defects are a contributing factor in road accidents. A far bigger problem is drivers not using their perfectly good eyesight properly.
My noble friend Lord Trafford wondered what sort of tests would be required. I cannot answer that question of course, but I would point out that the department's test of being able to read a number plate in good daylight from a distance of 75 feet, with characters three and a half inches high (or slightly less far for smaller characters) is an extremely simple one for the police to enforce if they stop somebody after an accident at the roadside. The police regularly notify the DVLC when they have reason to believe that a driver may be unfit to drive through poor eyesight or, indeed, for any other reason, so I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I believe that the existing system whereby it is already an offence to drive with defective eyesight is satisfactory.
In the light of the debate that we have had and of my reply, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I might ask him if his department believes that drivers tell the truth, both when being tested and on paper. I do not believe that they do. I think that if you give people a questionnaire they will fill it in as they wish to fill it in, and they are by no means honest.
I hope that the Minister will ask his department to look at this matter more closely because many people all over the country are very worried that this provision is left out of the requirements for the ability to drive.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank those who have supported me in the amendment and contributed to the valuable discussion. I feel that I must take up one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I was not suggesting that everyone who had an eyesight test would have to send that to the DVLC; rather, it would be the equivalent after an accident of being asked by the police to produce the MOT form, if relevant, the driving licence and certificate of insurance. It would be on those occasions that one would produce one's eyesight test; so it would not be adding to the burden of the DVLC.
The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, asked what sort of test would be required. He came in after I had already
624
read that definition from the 1988 Act, so he will be able to see it in Hansard. It is as prescribed in the Act for the purposes of competence to drive. That was the definition of the type of test that I was suggesting. I emphasise that I was suggesting an eyesight test by an optician and not a letter from a doctor. All doctors are put under great pressure by patients wanting the right to continue to drive, and it is often very difficult for a doctor to refuse to supply a letter saying that someone is fit to drive when there might be a cause for doubt, and they tend to give the patient the benefit of the doubt.
As so many people have asked what evidence there is, perhaps I should quote Deputy Chief Constable Hanlon of Staffordshire who, at the Royal Society of Health Congress, called for periodic monitoring of driver vision with police powers to have drivers tested. Apparently the police do not have powers at the moment to ask to have a driver tested. He said:
"We are in the position where the human failing of 'Looked but failed to see' is third highest out of 23 causes of human errors contributing to accidents after "Lack of care' and 'Too fast'".
In fact, he said that it was rather unfortunate that there was no way of checking whether a driver could see well enough to perform the complicated business of driving. So I think that this matter is not to be taken lightly.
I shall read what the Minister has said and consider it carefully. I should like further advice on the matter of age, but I think it is very important that people should be aware of their obligation to ensure that their eyesight is right. I believe that the only way to ensure that is to have it tested by some independent person rather than by the self-assessment process which has been suggested.
I thank the Committee for the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 49, at end insert—
("(8A) In section 96 of the 1988 Act (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight) at the end there shall be inserted the words—
"If a licence holder driving a motor vehicle on a road is found to be guilty of an offence, the Secretary of State shall require that person to submit to a test for the purpose of ascertaining whether he can comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under this Part of this Act for the purposes of test of competence to drive." ").
The noble Lord said: To some extent this amendment covers ground which we have recently dealt with. But I should like to start in 1935 when there was the eyesight requirement for an applicant for a driving licence for a private motor car. I make the distinction between the private motor car licence applicant and the bus or heavy goods vehicle licence which is based on what is called the eyesight test which is over 50 years' old.
In a paper prepared for the European Road Safety Year in 1986 there was the result of a survey carried out at the previous year's Motorfair Show at Earls Court when 4,000 visitors submitted to vision screening. They were asked about the official standard of vision required of licence holders.

625
Drivers knew that a number plate was involved, but only 3.3 per cent. knew the correct up-to-date vision distance of 67 feet. Further, guesses of the distance varied from 7 feet to 100 metres. That shows the total futility of that test.
In a paper by W. N. Charman, who was Professor of Ophthalmic Optics at the University of Manchester in 1984, are set out long tables of the requirements of a variety of countries so far as private motorist eye tests are concerned. For example, for the European Community the minimum static acuity for a two-eyed person is 0.4 in the better eye, 0.2 in the worst eye and 0.5 for both eyes together. For a one-eyed person it is 0.8. That is just one of five tests.
In the United Kingdom there is the number-plate test and that is all. Other countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg all have a far better requirement. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether in 1991 when the second directive comes into force we shall not have to comply with a European requirement; or are we going to stand still on the number-plate test?
I repeat that in effect the number-plate test is virtually a once-in-a-lifetime test. Although under the Road Traffic Act—I think it is Section 87 of 1972 Act, amended by the 1988 Act—a constable has the right to require a driver to undertake a test if he has reason to suppose that there is defective eyesight, that test is the number-plate test. (Incidentally, it is a constable as described in the Act and not a police officer, so there is perhaps a technical restriction there.)
When my noble friend the Minister was answering my noble friend about evidence, he said the research that had been carried out had found that defective eyesight was not a contributory factor to accidents. So far as I am aware there has been no research, because Stats 19, which is the police form reporting an accident, includes no requirement whatsoever to note physical health, whether general physical health or eyesight; so of course no evidence has been collected as to whether it was a contributory factor.
But if one looks at the Charman Report, the Davison Paper produced by Peter A. Davison of the Physics Department at the Dublin Institute of Technology in 1984, the R. V. North Paper produced in 1984 by Professor North at the Department of Optometry of the University of Wales and the paper entitled Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive produced by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention where the guidelines are set down, one sees that all these papers suggest that on the evidence of surveys carried out on numbers of people varying between 10,000 to 4,000, a defect in eyesight was established.
It might be a defect of acuity or of binocular or monocular vision. It might be a defect due to diabetes or glaucoma. It may be due to a variety of things. But I am talking about the generality. I think the Committee will understand that when we are talking about medical or eye defects.
I am suggesting that with this amendment we could begin to establish a statistical base—a base of information on accidents where a conviction was brought for reckless driving, for driving without due care and attention or for other causes. This might be the time to start compiling statistics on medical
626
health and eyesight health of the people, of any age group, who were involved in accidents. We could then see what emerges. That is the purport of this amendment.
I have paper after paper and I could produce a variety of statistics. I want to leave the Committee with one thought on this matter. During the July 1988 National Motorway Safety Campaign—that is a biennial affair sponsored by the police authorities, the Department of Transport and, in 1988, by the General Accident Insurance Company—the police invited people to undertake, quite voluntarily, an eyesight test. That test is known as the Short Snellen Test. Of 982 males who undertook the test, 195 of them, about 20 per cent., were found to have a defect in their eyesight. Of 233 females who quite voluntarily undertook the test 38 of them were found to have an eye defect.
The Association of Chief Police Officers tells me that it has been continually concerned about the link between accidents and bad eyesight. But there are no statistics to back this up. There is academic evidence which suggests that there may be a link, but there is no statistical evidence because the department refuses, or perhaps does not have the ability, to collect such figures. The insurance companies, the police authorities and the Department of Transport are all involved in this, but who is really interested? I ask my noble friend to bear in mind the very worthy endeavours of his right honourable friend and his honourable friend to reduce the incidence of fatal and serious injury on our roads. I congratulate him and his colleagues on a sterling effort.
We could go further by the adoption of this amendment. The provision contained in the amendment would attract no cost whatever to the state. It would be incumbent upon the convicted person to submit himself, at his own cost, to some suitable test. There is no God given right to drive a motor car. It is a privilege and people must prove that they are capable of driving and are competent drivers. It is with that thought that I urge the Committee to accept Amendment No. 8 standing in my name. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: I like this amendment a good deal more than the previous one. However, I think its provisions are far too wide because the words "an offence" could refer simply to an offence caused through exceeding the 30 mile per hour speed limit. One must have some caveat here and leave it to the discretion of the police whether an accident may have been caused by bad eyesight.
Further I do not think we should start to put an age limit on these tests. I say that because a great number of people first start to find that they are not seeing very well at the age of about 40 or 45. Often as they have carried on perfectly well without glasses they continue to do so. When some people get older they find they have to visit the oculist more frequently, simply because they cannot read the telephone directory or other matter. I do not subscribe to the idea of putting an age limit on the tests, because in my view such an age limit would have to be as low as 40.
I do not dispute for one minute that although a person may be able to see, or thinks he is able to see

627
perfectly well, unless he can see with acuity his reaction time definitely increases. I have a further point which slightly applies to the previous amendment. There are many factors in old age which decrease performance and possibly increase the likelihood of accidents. One of them of course is reaction time. I do not think that on balance we should single eyesight out as one of those factors.
The Earl of Onslow: I think it is better to go the other route. Rather than wait for something to happen, we should say to people that we shall develop the 75-foot rule as regards looking at number plates. We should do that rather than wait and prosecute someone for not being able to see where they are going.
This provision is rather like saying that one's car must pass an MOT test after it has been bent round a lamppost, rather than enforcing that beforehand so with luck it will not be bent round a lamppost. If we are going to go down this route of imposing some kind of compulsory test, I should much rather do something before accidents occur than afterwards.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: 1 hope my noble friend the Minister can help me and the Committee as regards the tests which I understand the police have been asking people to undertake completely voluntarily. The police have done this as a result of their concern. They have been asking people who drive into the Membury service station on a motorway out of London to take these tests. I understand it is that service station but I am open to correction. I know those tests have occurred at one of the service stations on one of the motorways leading out of London. When the Minister replies, will he tell us what conclusions the police have come to as a result of these voluntary tests, and indeed what kind of test the police administered? That would be most helpful.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support this amendment, as the Committee would expect. But I think that it is taking the measure a little too late. However, it is better to take it late than not at all. The provision might prevent the same person having a further accident. So it has that merit.
One of the Members of the Committee came to me a minute ago to say that we had not brought out the point of whether or not one's glasses were right. I hope that the Committee will understand that if one already wears glasses an eye test will show whether they are correct and if one does not already have them the test will indicate whether one needs them. That point is highly relevant and I mention it because I was asked to do so.
I support the amendment. Although I think that it would be preferable to have a regular eye testing programme for drivers rather than wait until they have had an accident, the amendment would at least represent something.
5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In some ways the debate on this amendment has been similar to the debate on the
628
previous amendment. Amendment No. 8 as drafted would require all drivers convicted of any motoring, offence to submit to a test of eyesight. There are l½ million driving convictions each year. Many are for technical infringements involving, for example, vehicle defects or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, exceeding the 30 mile per hour limit in which eyesight is not a factor. There would be nothing to be gained in road safety terms by requiring an eyesight test in such circumstances.
As I said earlier, research both in this country and abroad has not shown any significant relationship between various eye defects and accidents. The research does not produce any justification for compulsory eyesight tests. The Faculty of Ophthalmologists at the Royal College of Surgeons believes that our present arrangements for eyesight standards are satisfactory. That highly qualified and informed group does not support the call for regular eyesight tests, I understand. I believe that it says that the present number-plate test represents a high enough standard for an eyesight test.
Licence-holders have a continuing obligation to inform the licensing authority of the onset or worsening of any condition, including a deterioration in eyesight, which might affect their ability to drive. We do not believe that further requirements are practicable or necessary. As I said in relation to the previous amendment, the police already have powers to require a driver to submit to an eye test where they suspect an offence of driving with inadequate eyesight. As I mentioned in connection with the previous amendment, there are a number of such convictions each year.
So far as concerns the tests being carried out by police to which my noble friend Lady Macleod referred, I am afraid that I cannot give details at the moment. However, I shall endeavour to find out and let her know.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked about the proposals for the second EC directive. They have not yet been published. The eyesight standards proposed in that directive will be considered fully in the negotiations in order to see whether any changes in the present rules are needed. It is too early to say what the outcome will be.
My noble friend referred a moment ago to police powers. I am informed that the statutory term "constable" includes any police officer, so there is no doubt in that respect.
Our arguments are very similar to those in respect of the previous amendment. We do not believe that the amendment would be acceptable. One and a half million driving convictions each year would be involved, many of which are technical infringements.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I may press the point further. He has again referred to research: can he tell us what research has been done?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not have chapter and verse on the research that has been carried out either in this country or abroad but I can assure my noble friend that it has been done and has not revealed any

629
significant relationship between various eye defects and accidents.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his response, although I have to confess to being very disappointed by it. It is odd, is it not, that the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention has said that approximately 4 per cent. of drivers—about 1 million—fail to meet what it believes to be the minimum eyesight requirement? If one measures that against 1½ million convictions there seems to be some relationship.
I should like to mention, in order to place on the Committee's record, that my noble friend Lord Onslow made a slip of the tongue when he mentioned a distance of 75 feet. The current requirement is 67 feet. I am sure that he confused the great many figures we have bandied about.
I am not overly happy with my noble friend's reply. I think that he has begged the question and has failed to seize an opportunity. Nevertheless I should like to consider what he and others have said about the matter and perhaps return to it at a later stage. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment I should like to correct the point about distances. There are two requirements—75 feet for characters 3½, inches high, and 67 feet for characters 3½ inches high. So both my noble friends are right.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, can we have a little more information about the research which has been carried out? It is a marvellous smokescreen to hide behind. If research has been carried out one automatically assumes an aura of scientific knowledge. My noble friend Lord Lucas produced some interesting pieces of paper but my noble friend on the Front Bench said that he did not know what kind of research had been carried out and did not have chapter and verse. Can we have chapter and verse about the research which says that the present situation is perfectly harmless?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Not at this stage. If I had been able to give my noble friend more details I should have done so. However, I shall attempt to find out and perhaps be able to place some information in the Library.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Compulsory training courses for riders of motor cycles]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 31, after ("training") insert ("or is on the way to or from an approved training centre visited to undergo training").
The noble Lord said: I am certain that there will be general approval for the proposals in the Bill for a compulsory training course for motor cyclists. That was the impression one gained from our Second Reading debate. It would appear that both the
630
organisations representing the industry and motor cyclists approve of a new training scheme.
Clause 6 states that a person shall not ride a motor cycle on the road unless he has completed the course or is driving on the road in the course of his training. The amendment seeks to sanction a motor cyclist riding his own machine to the training centre. That proposal may appear to some Members of the Committee to be somewhat outrageous. However, I can give at least three reasons why I believe the amendment is necessary.
First, if a person was not able to use his own motor cycle all training centres would not necessarily have the required number of training machines available. It is generally agreed that it is preferable for training to be given on a rider's own machine, which in most circumstances he will continue to ride once he is licensed after training.
Secondly, there is the situation in a sparsely populated area where there may be a problem in getting to the training centre. That may apply not only to riders but also to instructors. It must be appreciated that in parts of the country for some riders the training centre may be a considerable distance away. That point is dealt with in later amendments. It would be far more sensible for the trainee to ride his own cycle to the training centre for the necessary training. If he does not, many riders will have problems in getting to the training centre.
There is also a question of the time that is required to travel over long distances, in some cases when there is no public transport available. There must be many areas in which public tansport operates only once a day and although one can get to the training centre it is not possible to return from it at night. That is a situation that is met by a number of people who carry out duties other than those involved with the training centre.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, envisaged the possibility of the training course extending over more than one day. I paraphrase his words, which I think indicated that if the trainee does not achieve the completion of the course on one day, "he will have to train longer". One can visualise that a person who lives in a sparsely populated area and who wishes to undergo training will have to undertake a difficult journey. He will either have to ask a friend to take him (in which case the friend will have to spend a few hours waiting for him to complete his training course before running him back again) or rely on public transport which may only operate one journey a day; and he must then face the impossibility of getting back home again at night.
Perhaps I may mention the case of a friend of mine who lives not far from Seascale in Beckermet. Her husband was ill in the general hospital in Whitehaven, and although she could catch a bus to Whitehaven in order to visit him, when visiting time was over she could not get a bus back. That situation will apply to trainees in many parts of the country. For the reasons that I have mentioned I believe that we should give consideration to allowing the trainee, in these special circumstances and so long as he or she is travelling to the training centre, to ride his own machine. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: I am happy to support this amendment. I should mention that I support all the amendments to Clause 6 that have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, which include Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 18 and 21.
I think that this is a very good amendment because it is a simple one. Unless every training place is to be equipped with small and big bikes, there is no other way, other than by using some form of public transport or a private vehicle, that people can take their own bikes there. I am not sure whether bus companies are allowed to carry motorcycles. If not, the trainee may have to rely on his parents for transport and they may not have a car or have only one car which the husband or wife may be using all day. There is therefore only one alternative, which is for the learner to drive himself to the testing ground.
If he is stopped by the police, provided that he can say, "1 am on this training course and I am booked in there", it should be all right. It is the situation that applies if one is stopped by the police when taking one's car for its MOT. Provided that one has booked in and can prove it, one has not broken the law.
I believe that this is a very sensible amendment. If the Minister does not consider it such, I should be delighted if he will explain how people will get from their place of residence to the training ground with their own machine, especially if they live out in the country.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to support this amendment. I speak from direct personal experience as a mother in that my daughter bought quite a large and powerful motorbike when she was a medical student and I considered that it was very important for her to have proper training to ride it.
The nearest training centre available to central London was in Enfield which was quite a distance away. No member of the family had a vehicle of a size that could possibly have taken her bike there. Yet, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, one should learn to ride on the bike that is intended to be used. There is not much point in learning on a quite different machine.
At the training centre trainees were taught not only how to ride but how to attend to minor things that go wrong with the bike. It makes one safer on the road if one is able to recognise some fault that has developed in the machine. This amendment is plain commonsense.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made the very good point that there is no way that people can get away with pretending that they are on their way to a training centre when they are not, because they would be clearly listed as being on the course. It could not be used as an excuse for riding the bike on other occasions. Going to training is quite a specific action. My daughter's training consisted of a regular weekly session lasting an hour or two each time. It was a course that was attended by many young people and was most satisfactory. I support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The purpose of Clause 6 is to ensure that all new riders receive basic training on
632
off-road sites before they are allowed on to the road. That has been welcomed on all sides of the Committee. Initially the training would be under the supervision of a training instructor. Once the trainees have successfully completed their training they will be able to ride unsupervised.
While I can understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and that of other noble Lords, on how novices would be able to get themselves and their machines to training sites, this amendment would allow a total novice to ride on the road to a site without having received any tuition at all. We do not believe that that would be right.
In answer to the points made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, there are very many dealers who already deliver machines, both new and second-hand, to training centres. Indeed it is in their interests to do so in order to make a sale. Some of the more enlightened dealers have in fact set up their own training facilities to provide training at the point of sale, and I can foresee that practice becoming more common in the lead up to compulsory training. There are also many authorised training bodies, mainly the full-time commercial concerns, which have machines available for hire. That, too, is likely to become more common.
I believe that if this amendment were accepted it would defeat the object of introducing compulsory training for novice riders and would allow them to ride on the road for the first time without having received any tuition. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am not so very disappointed with the Minister's reply because, frankly, it is one that I expected. Nevertheless, I believe that the point had to be made. At present a young man or woman can obtain a provisional driving licence for a motorcycle and can take the machine on the road straightaway. He or she can ride that machine for two years, during which period one part of the two-part test must be taken. We merely suggest that the opportunity to ride should apply only for a journey to an approved training centre.
The Minister added that some dealers may give training on the spot. I shall have to remember that point when we come to deal with the proper qualifications for training instructors because I do not want any old Tom, Dick or Harry of a dealer giving this important training. It must be very important; otherwise, we would not have put this provision into the Bill.
All I can do is read what the Minister has said and take the advice of my advisers. The motorcycle federation itself believes that something on the lines of this amendment is essential. Perhaps the Minister has some idea of how a person who lives up in Caithness and Sutherland and who wants to ride his bike to travel to work will ever be able to receive training if he has to travel right across from the west to the east of Scotland to a training centre, which is the only one for that area of the population. However, I shall read what the Minister has said, and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathcarron Lord Strathcarron moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 10, line 31, at end insert—
("(bb) after subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that approved courses of training for motor cyclists are provided in all local authority districts and boroughs." ").
The noble Lord said: The Secretary of State is making it a requirement for all new riders to pass a compulsory course before they can ride by themselves on the road. In my view the Secretary of State should accept the responsibility of making sure that there are training centres in all local authority districts and boroughs, and I hope that it may be possible to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I understand that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, is to be taken with Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 in my name and those of other noble Lords.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, that if this new training scheme, which is generally desired, is to be a success, then the location of training centres will be very much dependent upon the availability of suitable sites for off-road training. Often, off-road training is provided at schools and other locally managed sites. It will also be agreed that local authority road safety officers will have views on the need for basic training of riders and will need to be involved in any consultation on the adequacy of facilities.
I believe that all four amendments have certain problems which the Minister may outline. However, I shall set out what I consider to be the problems. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, requires that every district council and borough council needs to have a training centre. That may be impractical in some places.
Under my Amendment No. 21, the Secretary of State would be statutorily bound to consult with local authorities about the sufficiency of centres in their respective areas. Therefore, the local safety officers, to whom I have referred, would have a voice in this matter. I am not therefore laying down—and noble Lords who support the amendment agree—that every local authority area should necessarily have a training centre. We are saying that the Secretary of State shall consult with the local authorities about the sufficiency of centres within their areas. They may consider that there are too many or, if there are none at all, that something ought to be done. However, it is a matter that I believe all noble Lords could support.
In Amendment No. 19, I propose a 15-mile limit which a trainee should not have to exceed in driving to the centre. The problem is that we could lead ourselves into the same difficulty as with school transport and find that at 100 yards over three miles, transport is withdrawn. I rather dislike specifying a mileage basis. However, if we are to have a sensible decision, a basis must be considered. I leave that amendment for the Minister to consider.
Amendment No. 20 states that a trainee shall not have to travel "unreasonable distances". Having sat in this Chamber for nine and half years, and having listened to noble Lords in the legal profession argue
634
about reasonability and unreasonability, I can see the possible defect in the amendment.
All four amendments require consideration. Although there may be problems with regard to three of them, I can see no problem in Amendment No. 21. That requires the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities about the sufficiency of centres in their respective areas. I should like the Minister to give his views on the four amendments.
1 understand from the organisation representing the motorcycle industry that it estimates that some 200,000 persons may require training under this scheme each year. Fewer than 30,000 new riders receive formal training each year through the present voluntary training scheme. That is almost seven times the number who go through the present voluntary training scheme each year. The riders' organisation—the Motorcycle Federation—urges that the success of the new proposals depends largely on a continuation of voluntary schemes and that voluntary instructors will be playing a large part. Therefore, this question of accessibility is very important. If we want the scheme to be a success, there must be a sufficient number of training centres to which trainees can travel.
I should like the Minister to give his views on these four amendments. Each contains problems. The noble Lord may feel that one or another is worth adopting. I believe that one must be adopted if we are to have an adequate number of centres to carry out the training.
Earl Attlee: I speak to Amendment No. 20. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, says that in many Bills we hear about a "reasonable" person but that we have never had a completely satisfactory answer as to what is a reasonable person. On Amendment No. 20, I suggest that an "unreasonable" distance is such distance as a reasonable person would consider unreasonable.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My name has been attached to the wrong amendment—Amendment No. 19. That is probably my fault. However, perhaps I may have a moment or two of the Committee's time. We have to ensure that a training centre is reasonably available to everybody. I find Amendment No. 21 the most attractive. Fifteen miles is too arbitrary. It may be right in some areas and not in others. Amendment No. 21 should read that,
"The Secretary of State shall consult with local authorities about the sufficiency of approved training centres in their respective areas".
At present it refers simply to "centres". The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, calls for "approved courses of training" without necessarily identifying the locations at which those courses shall take place.
1 hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will forgive me if I recall what I believe was his remark that he did not want every Tom, Dick or Harry in the trade. I have never sold motorcycles in my life. However, speaking as one who has been involved in the motor industry for a very long time, I do not like that description with reference to the industry of motor vehicles, whether they are two, three or four-wheeled.

635
We shall come later to courses of training and who are the right and proper people to undertake them. However, if we insist—as we properly shall—that people undertake training, then we do not want to fall into the gap that occurred when the admirable RAC NCU system was abandoned. There were insufficient training centres and insufficient instructors in those few centres. We shall presumably debate the commercial aspects in a short while. However, the point is rather more complex than simply the number of places available to prospective trainees.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Noble Lords and others have voiced concerns over the adequacy of training facilities, especially in the remoter areas of the country. I understand that those concerns may stem partly from an audit of training facilities that the Motor Cycle Association of Great Britain has carried out. It should be borne in mind that this audit is incomplete. Many of the sites operated by Star Rider in remote areas are not yet included. The picture may therefore not be as bleak as has been indicated.
The first of this group of amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron would require training facilities to be provided in all boroughs and districts. Presumably that would apply in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. It is unclear whether such councils would be expected to provide the facilities themselves or whether the Secretary of State would simply have to satisfy himself that such facilities exist in all these councils. In any case we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It is possible that adequate nationwide coverage can be achieved without the need for training sites to be established in all borough and district council areas. That was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made.
The second amendment seeks to introduce a requirement that compulsory training will not come into operation if it would require a person to travel more than 15 miles to attend a training centre. I believe that such a requirement would be impracticable. While 15 miles may seem a long way to travel in London. in Scotland it would be regarded as just down the road. It is not uncommon for people to travel 40 or 50 miles to take their driving test in the remoter parts of the country.
The third amendment would require the Secretary of State to submit information to both Houses confirming that no one in the UK would have to travel unreasonable distances to attend training courses. The amendment is flawed in the fact that the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. Even so, I am advised that the wording of the amendment would make it unworkable in law, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, admitted, and on which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, had a view.
The final amendment seeks to introduce a statutory requirement to consult local authorities. Local authority road safety officers are in the best position to advise on the sufficiency or otherwise of training centres in their areas. The department's officials already hold regular liaison meetings with RSOs to discuss matters of mutual concern. A lack of
636
suitable training facilities would obviously be a matter of concern both to RSOs and the department and would be discussed at these meetings. In fact it was discussed at one of these meetings only last week.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Strathcarron referred to the sufficiency of sites. I think he said that 200,000 would be needing training each year and yet only 30,000 were currently taking full training. It must be borne in mind that training centres are vastly under-used at present. If geographical coverage is adequate, and we are sure it will be, there ought to be enough instructors to cope. Nevertheless I take note of these concerns and I should like to assure the Committee that these provisions will not be brought into effect until we are satisfied that adequate training facilities exist. Before we make any decision, we shall need to take into account the likely demand for training, especially in the remote areas. To do that we might need to look at the number and geographical spread of Part I tests conducted by approved training bodies, Part II tests conducted at our own driving test centres and possibly registration of two-wheelers. I hope that, with that assurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: Before the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron intimates what he wishes to do with Amendment No. 10, may I ask the Minister a question? He tells us that there are regular discussions between his department's officials and road safety officers. I believe he said that there was a consultation as recently as yesterday. Is there any reason why something of the kind that we suggested in Amendment No. 21 should not be written into the Bill? We say that time and time again. We had a long debate in this Chamber the other day concerning whether statements made in this place are admissable in courts of law. I listened to a greater part of that debate. Whatever may be said, we want to ensure that there is a proper method of consultation about training centres.
If the Minister believes that adequate consultation with the road safety officers of local authorities is taking place now, cannot we write it into the Bill that they must be consulted not just once but at regular intervals concerning the sufficiency of training centres in their areas? The information I have is that under the present training scheme there are about 850 centres in Great Britain. I notice that the Minister at Second Reading thought that there would be adequate coverage. He said:
"However, as it will now become compulsory, it is quite possible that more will open up".—[Official Report, 15/12/1988: col. 1063.]
I wish to make this far more certain than "quite possible". I want a definite assurance that sufficient centres will open up. If the Minister could see his way clear to writing into the Bill something along the lines of Amendment No. 21 about the sufficiency of centres in various areas being a matter of consultation with local authorities that would be helpful to me and to the training scheme.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall of course look into that matter, but there are complications in writing

637
into Bills the word "consult" because there are legal definitions of what needs to be done. I do not believe that it would be necessary for us to consult all local authorities for example. In London one could foresee a situation where there might not be a training centre in the middle of London, but if there is one in the next door borough that presumably would be perfectly adequate.
I believe the noble Lord said that I had said that there were 850 training centres in the country. I understand the figure to be nearer 910. As I said in my reply, 1 assure the Committee that these provisions will not be brought into effect until we are satisfied that adequate training facilities exist. That should be a fairly good assurance.
Lord Strathcarron: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his support. In view of the reassurance given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathcarron Lord Strathcarron moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 34, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: As the Bill is drafted at present, the Minister is not making any firm commitment to make regulations. If the new training course is to he taken seriously it must surely be the Minister's duty to make regulations governing training standards. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I support the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, in his amendment. Clause 6 details the five classes for which the Minister may make provision. All these are important. We have later amendments seeking to vary these or add to them, but it seems that merely making this power of regulation permissive on the Secretary of State is far too weak. The Secretary of State should be statutorily bound to introduce regulations, either those as at present written into the Bill or additions that we may seek to introduce later.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Not wishing to be repetitive, I hope that my noble friend can give us a satisfactory answer. We frequently find ourselves in difficulty over the words "may" and "shall". It seems to me that since this part of the Bill is concerned with the greater safety of motor cycle riders, their training and so on, there should be an express duty on the Secretary of State to do something rather than making it purely permissive, as my reading of Clause 6(2)(c) leads me to believe.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As has been explained, this amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning training. However, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Obviously the Secretary of State will need to make regulations so as to specify certain matters; for instance, the content of the training course. It may not be necessary, however, to make provision for all the matters listed in subsection (2)(c). We hope, for example, that it will not be necessary to specify charges for training, as it will be for the training groups to decide their level of charging. But the power is there to protect would-be riders.
638
I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Obviously the Secretary of State will need to make regulations. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Strathcarron: As the Secretary of State is prepared to make regulations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 40, at end insert ("and the days of the week on which training shall be made available").
The noble Lord said: The amendment adds to the regulations which the Secretary of State may and ought to make. After line 40 on page 10 we wish to add the words:
"and the days of the week on which training shall he made available".
It may be argued that there are problems in this respect, but we are dealing with people, many of them young, who are undergoing training. It will be essential that training centres are open arid available at times when young people can attend. As has already been mentioned, some may have to make substantial journeys.
I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment. We do not specify which days, but believe that the regulations should lay down the days of the week on which training centres shall be available. The exact days and hours are open to consultation between the various organisations which will make arrangements for the training centres. I hope that the Minister will agree that this provision should he included in the list of regulations. They will not be compulsory but the Minister is given permission to bring about regulations. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: This is a sensible amendment. If it misses anything it is in the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The amendment reads:
"and the days of the week on which training shall he made available".
I believe that it should include the words, "and the times of day".
Many of those who will undertake the training will be young people attending school. It will not be much good if training centres are closed at the weekend when those people are free, but open during the week when the likely users will be at school.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am puzzled as to why the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has proposed the amendment. I can see no reason why the Secretary of State should need to specify in regulations the days of the week on which training should be available. Training will be available on whatever days training groups operate. There are over 910 training sites throughout the country. Very many of those (about 85 per cent.) rely upon the goodwill of volunteer instructors who give up their spare time, usually at weekends, to pass on their enthusiasm, knowledge and skill to those coming into motorcycling. There are also many who operate purely on a commercial basis and run training courses up to seven days a week.

639
By specifying that training must be made available on certain days we could well end up driving away the voluntary groups. I cannot believe that that is the purpose behind this amendment, but it could well be a consequence of it. For that reason I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Underhill: The Minister has made a valid point: we do not wish to drive away volunteers. However, neither do we wish to attract commercial training centres which will try to cream off on certain days of the week. I readily withdraw the amendment, but I should like to consider carefully what the Minister has said. I should also like to seek the advice of those bodies which are directly involved: the industry and the riders' associations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 41, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) the instruction, examination and approval by the Secretary of State of instructors to provide training and the withdrawal of his approval, and regular checks requiring that instruction standards are maintained:").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13 deals with motorcycle training: It proposes to delete paragraph (b) at line 41 on page 10 which reads:
"the approval by the Secretary of State of the persons providing the courses and the withdrawal of his approval".
The Secretary of State will be permitted to make that regulation should he so desire.
The amendment proposes to delete that paragraph and substitute the words:
"the instruction, examination and approval by the Secretary of State of instructors to provide training and the withdrawal of his approval, and regular checks requiring that instruction standards are maintained".
From advice that I have received it appears to be essential that correct instruction should be given to the instructors. The examination and approval of instructors must be carefully treated. We recognise the fact that the Secretary of State must have the authority to withdraw his approval of any instructor should he so desire. Regular checks must be made to ensure that required instruction standards are maintained.
If, as the Minister said, there are approximatey 900 voluntary centres under the present scheme—and we have been told that about 200,000 people may need to undergo annual training under the new scheme—it is essential that the scheme should be maintained at a high standard.
The Bill makes no reference to that requirement, but the adoption of our amendment will ensure that a higher standard for the training of instructors, their examination and subsequent monitoring is carried out. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I had anticipated that Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 would be grouped together and I should like to speak to both. On reflection I can see no reason why we should not deal
640
with the purport of the amendments by altering Section 123 of the 1988 Act. It provides that:
"No paid instruction in the driving of a motor car shall be given unless",
and there then follows a series of requirements. In effect they are repeated in the two amendments before the Committee this afternoon.
It will not drive away the volunteer any more than it has driven away the volunteer in car driving. It assures the purchasers of instruction that they are taking part in an approved course run by approved people. A register can be checked and there are other penalties and attributes to that conception.
I realise that if Section 123 of the 1988 Act was altered there would be a number of consequential amendments up to Section 128. However, it follows that motorcycle instruction, which is giving great cause for concern, should at least be on a par with motor vehicle driving instruction. That appears to follow, and it would obviate much of the confusion which may occur in setting up a separate and distinct system for motorcycle instructors.
Earl Attlee: I also wondered why Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 were not grouped together because to do so appears to be logical. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, if you are going to teach someone to drive for payment you must be qualified. However, under this Bill, if you are going to teach someone the rudiments of riding a motorcycle for payment, then you need have no qualifications at all. In a car the driving instructor sits beside the driver, whereas it is a very brave man who would sit on the back of a motorcycle to teach someone to ride it. Therefore, presumably, that tuitition wil be done not on the bike but by standing alongside or running after it. Therefore, I should have thought that a qualification is needed to prove that instructors are capable of such teaching.
Speaking personally, when I was very much younger I bought a motorbike and rode without any training. I was a member of the Honourable Artillery Company and I went to Pirbright and areas like that and received payment for riding army bikes across country. The first time—never having been off a metal road in my life—I went across country, afterwards the leader of the team said, "Attlee, you have a very novel style but it seems to be effective. Would you like to join our team?" I did that. I do not believe that that is very wise. It would have been far better had I been taught the rudiments of going across country by someone qualified to do so.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: At first glance this may appear to be a fairly reasonable amendment. However, I have to point out that if accepted it could put back the concept of compulsory training by up to 10 years! I am sure that is not the purpose behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but that could certainly be its effect.
The present situation is that the department approves every training body authorised to conduct Part I of the motorcycle test. Also, to ensure consistent standards of testing we train at least one examiner from each organisation at our driving establishment at Cardington. In the case of national

641
organisations like Star Rider and the British Motorcyclists Federation we train one examiner from each region. Once trained, these examiners can train other examiners in the organisation. In this way we are able to keep a register of all approved training bodies (ATBs) and all approved examiners.,
Under the new regime it is our intention to authorise ATBs to carry out compulsory training and we expect them to train their own instructors. We are in discussion with representatives of the training groups on the need for selected instructors to attend Cardington prior to this provision coming into force.
If this amendment is accepted the Secretary of State will be responsible for the training of all motorcycle instructors. Since there are over 4,000 in Britain, it could take 10 years to train them all at Cardington. We do not want that and feel it is unnecessary.
The amendment also seeks to include in statute a regular monitoring system. We issue conditions of appointment to each ATB authorised to undertake Part I of the test. These include a section on monitoring arrangements. Such monitoring will remain a feature of the appointment of ATBs under the new regime. Therefore it is not necessary for such checks to be given statutory backing.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked whether or not the same rules should apply for motorcycle instructors as for car instructors; that is, that they should all be approved by the Department of Transport. We believe that for motorbikes it is more appropriate to authorise ATBs. Many motor car instructors are self-employed so we have to vet them individually, but, as I have said, all the motorbike instructors will operate from training centres.
Therefore, I hope that the explanation I have given and the difficulties which accepting this amendment would present and the delay in implementing Clause 6 of this Bill will enable the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I find it very difficult to accept that if this amendment is approved by the Committee then that would put back the scheme for 10 years. While the Minister has been speaking I have not had an opportunity to refer to the guidelines for the pilot Autoguide system. However, as that is being considered, surely the department must be considering the nature of the training courses and the question of instructors. The regulations which may be made include:
"(a) the nature of the courses of training".
Therefore, detailed consideration must be given by the department, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to the nature of the courses of training. We are saying that we should also like to insert regulations regarding the instruction, examination and approval of instructors to provide training. We are not laying down exactly how that should be done and we are certainly not asking the Secretary of State to have all the instructors at Marsham Street one by one to undergo training. We should like regulations to lay down exactly how the training and examination of instructors shall proceed. Surely that is not a difficult task. If that will take 10 years, then frankly—I was
642
about to use some had language which I must not do in Committee—we need a complete overhaul of the Department of Transport at Marsham Street, because if that situation will take 10 years to bring about there is something wrong and bureaucratic about the organisation.
It seems to me that if we want a good standard of scheme then regulations must lay down the qualifications and how to deal with the question of instructors. Without proper selection and training of instructors, there may as well not be a training scheme, and that may as well not be in the Bill.
I agree with those who said that this amendment should perhaps be considered with Amendment No. 14, and I ask that we do that because one goes with the other. I believe that we cannot have a proper scheme for the examination and training of instructors unless we have an official register of instructors which will be approved by the Secretary of State. In view of the Minister's general pushing off of the amendment with an argument which I regard as specious, I shall look carefully at what he said. However, I am sure that we shall have to return to this matter because I cannot believe that my amendment, if carried, will delay the implementation of the scheme by 10 years. If that is the position then we need a complete overhaul of officials at the Department of Transport. I do not accept that that is necessary. I believe that many officials there are quite capable of devising such a scheme in the time required.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may point out that I said nothing about needing to overhaul Marsham Street or that that would take 10 years. This amendment would make the Secretary of State responsible for the training of all motorcycle instructors and, as there are 4,000 of them, to get them through the course at Cardington would take up to 10 years.
Lord Underhill: I must draw the attention of the Minister to paragraph (b), which states that the Secretary of State may provide regulations. The Bill speaks of:
"the approval by the Secretary of State of the persons providing the courses and the withdrawal of his approval".
The Bill states that he must approve the persons providing the courses. He will not merely draw names out of a hat. There must be justification for his approval. My amendment sought to lay down the type of qualities which should he taken into consideration when giving that approval. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No, 14 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10. line 43, after ("the") insert ("maximum").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment which is intended to ensure that, while there can be financial competition, overcharging will be banned. This matter goes back to the discussions we had earlier on the widespread nature of training areas. It

643
could very well lead to a rural monopoly if there is no training area nearby and a long way to go for the nearest. The person who sets up a training school could charge almost anything. I hope that the Minister will recognise that point.
We are not affecting competition because the minimum charge is not affected in any way. We are not even affecting the possibility of certain schools or training establishments offering the initial course at a cut rate, with the promise of a more extensive course after the initial course has been passed. We are allowing plenty of flexibility. We are concerned only that there should be no possibility of overcharging because many trainees will be young teenagers. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: In considering this matter we must realise that there will be training centres keen to offer wider and more extensive training, which will clearly cost more, so they ought to have the commercial freedom to charge accordingly. Indeed, it may be for the benefit of the rider being trained because he may get an attractive deal as a result. That possibility might be affected if there is a set charge.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: What my noble friend Lord Strathcarron says may be true, or it may not—that is something of a hostage to fortune. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister why the subsection is in the Bill at all. It seems to be totally contrary to the Government's general philosophy that market forces should prevail.
I remind the Committee that we are discussing Clause 6 and the new subsection (3A) which states that "regulations may make" and, later, "regulations may in particular", so there is no compulsion on the Secretary of State to do anything whatever in regard to charges. However, if at some time he is to take the authority that this Bill enables him to take—I am not happy about that—certainly the amendment we are discussing that fixes a maximum charge should pertain; otherwise I see no value in this clause of the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In answer to my noble friend, it is inconceivable that we should wish to specify a minimum charge for training. If an ATB wished to offer free training we would certainly not object; nor would we wish to institute a flat rate charge since costs undoubtedly differ in various parts of the country. If charges were to be specified in regulations—as my noble friend points out, they might not necessarily be so—they would be maximum charges and therefore, despite what my noble friend said, I am happy to accept this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We can be nothing but gracious towards the Minister since he has been gracious enough to accept the amendment. I am happy with the result.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) the examination of persons completing courses of training to justify the provision of certificates that a course of training has been successfully completed:").
The noble Lord said: I had expected this amendment to be linked with Amendment No. 17 but I believe the Minister would prefer them to be dealt with separately and I am happy with that. It is not enough that the course should be completed: the certificate should also state that the course has been successfully completed. I do not consider that to be hair-splitting. It is of some importance and I hope that the Minsiter will consider the amendment sympathetically. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The Committee will be aware that compulsory training is intended to replace the part I motorcycle test so that we can get away from the idea of two tests for motorcyclists. This amendment implies that there should be a test at the end of the compulsory training course. We do not want that. Instructors will conduct a rolling assessment of those undertaking training. Only if all elements of the course are completed to the instructor's satisfaction can a certificate, showing successful completion of the course, be issued. Motorcycle instructors are skilled people and they will know when a rider is competent enough to be allowed to ride on the road without supervision. We can rely upon their judgment. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that reply and for his elucidation of the proposed method. There is a slight difficulty, in that we want uniformity over the entire country. Although in general I am in favour of an ongoing assessment of riders before they go for a full test, I should have thought it would he helpful if they had a feeling within themselves that at least they were through the first part and could go on to the proper test. However, in view of the Minister's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 10, line 46, after ("training") insert ("having achieved adequate standards to permit authorisation of the unsupervised driving of such motorcycles on public roads").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is on the same lines as Amendment No. 16 and the argument is much the same. I expect the Minister's answer will be the same.
We are still looking for training standards to be uniform throughout the country and suggesting that there should be some way in which the person taking the course can show that he has reached that uniform standard. Therefore, when someone moves from one part of the country to another he will have some way of showing that, before taking the test, he had adequately completed the course. Young people tend to move about the country and some record would therefore be needed or a trainee would have to go back to the beginning, perhaps with a new instructor,

645
voluntarily or otherwise. Therefore, I hope the Minister will give this proposal some thought. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The wording of this clause is quite deliberate. It requires a rider to have successfully completed an approved training course before he is allowed to ride on the road unsupervised. A rider will only have successfully completed the course if he satisfies his instructor that he has reached the standard required to be issued with a certificate. This is already included as a requirement in the outline of the compulsory course which we are currently discussing with the training bodies.
I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord's point about someone moving to another part of the country, because if he has a certificate he is allowed to ride. If he wants to take further training he can do so, and I hope he will. Having obtained a certificate he is allowed to ride and that certificate is of equal value anywhere in the country.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister said that there would be an ongoing test and that is when the rider would get the certificate. If a young person had spent a lot of time in training but moved before he took his test, would he need to go back to the beginning in the new area before applying for his full test?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It is not quite like that. At the end of the course which the rider attends—probably a one-day course but it could be longer if he is unsuccessful—he will get his certificate, in which case he will then be allowed to ride unsupervised. He must then go on to take his test. If he wants to undertake further training he can do so and if he does not want to do so, he need not. When he takes his test the position will be as at present. He will not in future he allowed to ride unsupervised until he has obtained his certificate, and that certificate will be uniform throughout the country.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I note what the Minister says, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) special circumstances in which exemptions from the requirements for successful completion of a course of training may be authorised by the Secretary of State to permit the driving of motorcycles on public roads without having undertaken such training;").
The noble Lord said: This is another suggested addition to the permissive regulations that the Minister may make. The amendment proposes,
"special circumstances in which exemptions from the requirements for successful completion of a course of training may be authorised by the Secretary of State to permit the driving of motorcycles on public roads without having undertaken such training:".
We have discussed on previous amendments the Minister's rejection of circumstances under which a trainee should be permitted to use his own motorcycle in riding to a training centre. This
646
amendment is intended to cover cases that may be exceptional but nevertheless should be included in the Bill. For example, a training centre may be closed for various reasons. There may be a lack of instructors. When training has been undertaken by a trainer or a commercial organisation, it could be found impossible to keep going either because of the charge or because a loss is being made. Heaven forbid, it may be that the centre is closed for a period because of industrial action. There are various reasons why a training centre may be closed. Because of that we wish to ensure that there are regulations by which the special exemption can be given. Obviously, the regulations would have to detail very carefully the nature of such exemption and the circumstances in which an exemption may be granted. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has outlined some points that I believe are worthy of consideration. I would not wish to raise false hopes about the amendment at this stage but I wish to consider what has been said and whether there may be wider implications for the concept of exemptions from the compulsory training requirement. If the noble Lord cares to withdraw the amendment I shall undertake to consider the matter to see whether the provision for exemption is the right way to proceed. I shall be in touch with the noble Lord between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for that undertaking. In those circumstances I readily withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:—
("P-plates.
After section 97(3) of the 1988 Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the introduction of a standard sign (to be known as a "P-plate") which may be affixed by any driver to the front and back of a vehicle in the manner of a learner plate, indicating that the driver of the vehicle, whilst qualified to drive, has recently passed a driving test or has limited recent experience of driving unaccompanied." ").
The noble Baroness said: I raised this matter at Second Reading. I believe that my amendment is quite clear and self-explanatory. I am not particularly sold on the idea of its being a P-plate; it could be an "R", a "D" or whatever one wishes to call it. "P" is the letter used in Australia where I have seen this system in operation. It indicates "probationary". It would be a warning to other drivers that the driver of the car is not an experienced one; it would also be a warning to passengers or prospective passengers.
Recently, my newly-qualified daughter was driving me when I happened to see the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, waiting for a taxi. I very brightly said to my daughter, "Pull up and offer him a lift." That is what we did. If my daughter had had the P-plate I do not believe that he would have been so

647
willing to get in, but he did. As we drove along Bayswater Road and approached Marble Arch I was saying to her, "A little more left; a little more to the right; be careful here". When we eventually negotiated the traffic at Marble Arch and got into Park Lane, I heard the noble Lord who was sitting in the back with his newspaper, ask, "She has passed her test, hasn't she?" When we arrived here we had made the journey rather slowly but safely and the noble Lord seemed to be a very relieved passenger when he departed.
One tends to forget when drivers are new drivers. My daughter passed the test at the first attempt but she was a comparatively inexperienced driver. Not only was she lacking in a degree of confidence, she was also certainly lacking in a degree of expertise when confronted with a situation such as one finds at the Marble Arch roundabout which can be pretty daunting for anyone.
I remember a case that came before the courts some years ago of a woman who was summoned for driving with L-plates when she had actually gained her driving licence. I believe the judge gave her an absolute discharge because he said he had sympathy with her. She said she was driving with L-plates because the other traffic around her was quite terrifying. She felt that the plates gave her a degree of protection and that because people made allowance for the fact that she was not a very experienced driver they did not sit right on top of her vehicle. I believe that it is a protection. giving a degree of assurance to the driver.
My original intention at Second Reading was to suggest that this provision should be enforceable. I have not included that in the amendment simply because the Minister sent me a very detailed letter setting out the reasons why he opposed such a measure. One reason he gave was that it would be very difficult to enforce and that it would take a great deal of police time. He also said that there was no place on the driving licence where one could show the date of the test. That surprised me. I should have thought that in these computerised days it would be very simple to include on the driving licence the date of the test.
The Minister continued by saying that a person could obtain a licence today, drive non-stop for three months and become a comparatively experienced driver within a very short time. Someone else might drive perhaps only once a month or perhaps put the licence away in a drawer for five years. In those circumstances it would not be necessary for them to show the plate after that period of time. Yet such a person would be less experienced than someone who might have been driving for a matter of months. I accept the logic of that argument and for that reason I thought it preferable to suggest that people could choose to use this symbol.
Another category would be people who have a degree of disability in driving. There are drivers who have three-year licences following which a medical certificate has to be obtained to show that the driver is able to continue. There are some people with medical conditions that vary with intensity from time
648
to time. Such people, if they were not feeling 100 per cent., could put such a label on their car and other drivers would know that the symbol meant that this was someone whose driving they should pay special regard to.
I believe that there is merit in having a symbol of this kind. If it is impossible to make it mandatory or enforceable, as the Minister believes, then I believe that there is an optional element that would be extremely valuable. I believe that such a scheme exists already in France. There, not only is it enforced but such a driver is also restricted to the speed at which he can travel during the period of the limited licence. In Australia I believe the period is about 18 months. One is not allowed to drive beyond a certain speed. If one has an accident during that period one has to pay on the insurance policy a higher premium because the driver has not had sufficient experience. There are many conditions attached to such a scheme and these are valuable.
Another point in the Minister's letter with which I do not agree is where he says that there is no merit at all in having any officially designated sign. In that respect I part company with his letter. I was prepared to go along with most of the other points he made. I believe that it must be an officially designated sign. If people simply put a notice in the back of a car, others will wonder what it means or would have to think about it. That would be useless. It needs to be something that has a particular value attached to it, for example a "P" plate or an "R" plate, as I believe occurs in Northern Ireland. Whatever form the plate takes it should be something that notifies other drivers that a driver will not be progressing at perhaps the same pace as the rest of the traffic or that he might not have the same degree of co-ordination.
Many different points could be covered. Such drivers would be safe enough to drive but would not be put under the same degree of pressure by other drivers. There would not he what is called "tail-gating", when other drivers come right up to the bumper bar. It has happened often enough to me when I have been driving at full speed on the motorway. Another car comes to within a foot of one's bumper bar and sits there. It is most intimidating. For that to happen to someone who is not so competent in his driving would be quite alarming. This amendment is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I have some sympathy with this suggestion although I am not clear on one point. I thought that we were talking about motorcycles. With the thought of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, her daughter and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, coming around Marble Arch, I can understand why my noble friend the Leader of my party in this House might have gone a little pale. From the way the noble Baroness shakes her head, I think that perhaps Section 97(3) of the 1988 Act ranges beyond motorcycles.
Perhaps I may also suggest that if a "P" is used in Australia it should be a "d" in this country. That is what an upside down "P" looks like over here. Having made those slightly frivolous comments, I think there is a good deal to be said for having some

649
designation of drivers who have just come out of the period of learning. It would be good for them and would encourage people to give them a little more consideration. Many people who have just come out of the learner phase suddenly find that everything happens to them at once. They do not have the protection that L-plates give to people. In France people must display a 50 kilometre an hour restriction sign on their cars while they are learning. Then they must display the sign with a line through it for a period of six months or nine months after that time. I am sure that it is a good idea. Whether the Government would be prepared to support such a piece of bureaucracy I slightly doubt.
Viscount Brookeborough: In Northern Ireland we have a system of R-plates. The R stands for restricted. Since 1968 the R has been mandatory. The R denotes that the person passed his driving test within the previous year. Those with R-plates on their cars are restricted to a speed of 45 miles an hour. Should another driver drive that car while still displaying the R-plates he or she is automatically restricted to that speed.
About an hour ago, when I realised that this amendment would be debated, I spoke to the divisional commander of the traffic branch of the RUC. He pointed out that after its introduction in 1968 there was an immediate reduction in accidents. His graphs show that as age and experience of driving increase there is a large reduction in the number of accidents. The figures for 1988 were as follows. Out of 11,059 vehicles involved in accidents, 654 drivers had R-plates, 388 were learners and 319 drivers were within one year of taking down their R-plates. The figures show that 12 per cent. of vehicles involved in accidents were driven by people who were within two years of getting their full licence. In 1987, one year earlier, the proportion was even higher. Should a driver with R-plates appear in court for a traffic offence the period for displaying them can be extended. Should for any reason a driver lose his licence for more than one year, when he re-takes the test he has again to display an R-plate.
R-plates impose a speed restriction and make the driver himself more conscious that he must pay attention to the rules of the road. In addition, as we have already heard, they make others more aware of the fact that he probably has limited experience of driving. Whether or not he passes his test and does not drive for that full year until the year after does not make much difference. Most drivers who pass their test drive afterwards. In the opinion of the police the system is an important contributory factor to road safety in Northern Ireland. Police visiting from Great Britain and the Isle of Man last year showed a great deal of interest in it. Reference was made to administration. With licences being computerised, there can be no problem in including one more set of figures—the date that the licence was first granted. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: While I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, I have doubts on one point. For many years I have tried to
650
get the department properly to recognise the L-plate. I have never been successful. The L-plate is sometimes left on cars when there is only one driver. We do not even have the restriction used in Northern Ireland of an R plate on the car. That would be an advance. We all see people who display L-plates but are obviously not learner drivers.
I received a gem of a reply from the department many years ago. I was worried that if people drove in that way the plate would be devalued and that proper attention would not be paid to it. I was told that one should always drive with care and attention whether or not an L-plate is displayed. That makes one wonder why we bother with L-plates in the first place. I would support such an amendment if there was a restriction on the speed at which the car could travel. I suggest that cars displaying L-plates should not exceed 30 miles an hour. Someone who takes a learner on the road should afterwards take off the plates so that the car is shown to be no longer that of a learner driver.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining so clearly the purpose of the amendment and for the amusing story that she told. I wonder what excuse the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, might have made for not getting into the car in the first place. I am sure that he would not have caused offence in carrying a P-plate but that might give some difficulties to people in the future.
As the law stands at present there is nothing to prevent P-plates from being displayed voluntarily. The amendment as drafted would leave the use of such plates on a voluntary basis and would merely standardise their design. A number of countries have mandatory probation schemes for newly-qualified drivers. Northern Ireland is one of them, as my noble friend Lord Brookeborough pointed out. We have no evidence to show that they help to reduce casualty rates. I understand that neither has RoSPA which has looked into this matter. We have no plans to introduce such a scheme or to encourage their use.
There are, however, many disadvantages to such schemes. It would seem to us that some qualified drivers may react to P-plates aggressively rather than defensively. To that extent the novice's plight would be aggravated. Further, the driving test is designed to assess the ability of learners to drive safely on the road. P-plates would imply that despite passing the test a driver was not in fact competent.
A million drivers pass their test every year. Therefore to add this number of P-plates to the existing number of L-plates could in our view reduce the impact of L-plates. Plates could get left on a vehicle by another driver, or another rider in the case of the vehicle being a bike, who is not experienced and they would thus tend to be devalued.
For all those reasons I am afraid that we are not in favour of such a scheme. I must just point out to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that it is not an offence to drive with L-plates even if you have passed the test. Therefore 1 am not quite sure about the case which she mentioned. That I cannot understand, because it is not an offence. Accordingly, we cannot accept the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Before the Minister sits down, can he tell us whether there was a time when there was a suggestion contained in the Highway Code that although it may not be an offence to travel with L-plates when one is not a learner driver, it was considered to be bad practice? I thought that that was mentioned in the Highway Code at one time and that it had been quietly dropped.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure whether that provision is in the Highway Code at present. As I said, it is not an offence. However, it is not a very good idea. If you are driving by yourself with L-plates you are likely to be stopped by the police who will wonder why you are driving on your own. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I shall look into the matter.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I had not intended to take part in the debate, although this is a subject by which I have always been attracted. However, when I heard my noble friend moving the amendment, I found myself agreeing with a great deal of what she said. Surely my noble friend on the Front Bench has actually—I hope that I say this in no sense of unkindness—kicked something of an own goal. The whole point about the L-plate is that it creates difficulties. If you are a qualified driver but you drive with an L-plate in order to warn other drivers, you are likely to be stopped. However, you will have an answer because you can show your driving licence.
The idea of having a separate designation—I was also much impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough—whereby you can tell other road users that you are not very experienced and please could they take care seems to have a good deal of attraction.
The point that has always struck me is the question of motorway driving. You are not allowed to drive on a motorway with an L-plate. Therefore the first time you ever have any experience of driving on a motorway is after you have taken your test. Yet, we all know that this can actually he quite a hair-raising experience. I should have thought it would be of considerable help to other drivers if you were able to have a sign as you go on the motorway driving by yourself—because it may well be inconvenient to have to be accompanied—indicating that you are not a very experienced driver. One knows from one's experience, especially in regard to some of the congestion on the motorways, that some drivers can create difficulties.
Therefore I hope that my noble friend will not dismiss the amendment out of hand and that he will undertake to look at the matter. I say to him, again with the greatest kindness, that I was not impressed by the arguments with which he has been furnished by his department. Indeed, one recognised the hand of the Sir Humphreys. I think that one must take a rather more critical look at some of those arguments. I believe that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has put a case with some strength to the Committee. Therefore I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am most grateful for the support which has been expressed. I am sorry that there was a degree of confusion at the beginning when it seemed to some Members of the Committee that we were still on the subject of motorcycles. This was a new clause and therefore quite detached from the motorcycle issue.
In view of what my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, said, it would seem logical to me that the amendment I tabled should really press for an R-plate. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and therefore there is some logic in the argument that we should have the same.
The other point made by my noble friend which most impressed me was that the restriction attaches to the car rather than to the driver. That is an absolutely splendid point which we should also bring in with our L-plates. It should be that if you have an L-plate on the car, whether you are alone or not, you should have to drive under certain conditions.
The point with regard to driving with L-plates when you have a licence has already been made by other speakers but, nevertheless, it is a valid one. It may be that the law in connection with that point has changed, because the case I cited happened many years ago. However. I remember at the time being most surprised and struck by the case, because 1 had not realised that you should not drive with L-plates if you had a licence. Certainly, if you are driving alone in a car with L-plates the police have an obligation to stop you and ask you why you are alone. L-plates should of course be displayed by a learner driver who is accompanied by a qualified driver. Clearly anyone driving on his own with L-plates is in a difficult situation.
I think that the proposal has a great deal of merit in it: but I also think that it needs planning to work out the best way of doing it—such as, for example, in the case of the R-plates. I also think that it will be good to go more thoroughly into whether it should be mandatory or optional. I should like to have further discussions with my noble friend on this point before we reach the next stage of the Bill. In its present form, as put down today, there are obviously points to be considered.
I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again. I shall however certainly be bringing it back again in some other more detailed and accurate form. It will be a matter of whether the department wishes to co-operate to try to work out a system which will be good and effective. Indeed, I think that the evidence from Northern Ireland will be extremely valuable in this connection. On those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule 3 (Driving Licences: Minor, Consequentionial, and Further Amendments):
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 28, line 34, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 to 29. These amendments clarify the arrangements

653
for exchange of driving licences. The wording ensures that drivers who pass the test or hold a full licence in the appropriate categories of vehicle get an equivalent Great Britain licence as though they had passed the test in a similar vehicle in Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 29:
Page 28. line 34, at end insert—
("( ) in paragraph (b) for the word "any" where it first occurs there shall be substituted the word "all"; and").
Page 28, line 38, leave out ("any") and insert ("all").
Page 28, line 46, leave out ("any") and insert ("all").
Page 29, line 4, leave out ("any") and insert ("all").
Page 29, line 9, leave out ("any") and insert ("all").
Page 29, leave out lines 15 to 29 and insert—
("(10) A full Northern Ireland licence, a full British external licence, a full British Forces licence or an exchangeable licence shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs (b)(ii), (d) or (f) (as the case may be) of subsection (1) above as authorising the driving of—

(a) vehicles of all classes designated by regulations as a group for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, if the licence authorises the driving of vehicles of any class included in the group, or any class corresponding to a class included in the group, and

(b) vehicles of all classes included in another such group, if by virtue of regulations a person holding a licence authorising him to drive vehicles of any class included in the group mentioned in paragraph (a) above is treated as competent also to drive vehicles of a class included in that other group.").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 31, leave out lines 15 and 16.
The noble Lord said: This amendment merely removes a duplication in the wording of paragaph 9 of Schedule 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 32. line 17, at end insert—
(" . In section 165(4) of the 1968 Act (defence in case of failure to produce certain documents) for "subsection (1)" there shall be substituted "subsection (3)"").
The noble Lord said: This amendment merely rectifies an error in the original drafting of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 165(4) of the 1988 Act refers to "an offence under subsection (1)" when in fact the provision creating the offence is in subsection (3). I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: Naturally I support the amendment to correct an oversight. However, perhaps I may make a statement about an amendment which I had intended to move, the purpose of which was to bring in a new subsection. The amendment moved by the Minister refers to the production of "certain documents". I must point out that the amendment which I tabled was also regarding the production of documents.
Advice was given to me that that amendment was not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.
654
Naturally, after discussion, I accepted that advice and withdrew the amendment yesterday morning. It referred to an issue which was raised by my noble friend Lord Carmichael in a Second Reading speech as far back as 6th June 1985 with regard to the Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Bill. On that occasion the Minister accepted that there was an anomaly, but it was not wished to have an amendment which might delay the passage of a Private Member's Bill which was generally desired, and so the amendment was not pressed.
The Minister said that he would keep the matter in mind, and when a suitable legislative opportunity arose would table such a provision. The Minister may not be able to give me an assurance today because he did not know that I was going to raise the matter. It will be almost four years since the matter was raised. I wonder whether the Minister will give the matter consideration for legislation at the appropriate time.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, although the noble Lord said that he did not give me notice of this matter, I saw his earlier amendment which was subsequently withdrawn. I understood why that was done and we will look into the matter. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that we shall take the next available appropriate opportunity to introduce the measure. I hope that that will not be too far away. If we shortly have legislation on the North Report that would provide an opportunity.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 33, line 25, leave out ("3") and insert ("3(1)").
The noble Lord said: There are two offences under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. It is only the offence under paragraph 3(a)—failure by driver with a provisional licence or a driver under the age of 21 to comply with the conditions of his licence—that is relevant here. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 33, line 32, column 1, leave out ("114(2)") and insert ("114(1)"):
The noble Lord said: The reference here to the offence created by Section 114(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is incorrect. The reference should be to Section 114(1). The amendment rectifies this error. A reference to the offence created by Section 114(2) is added by a later amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 33, line 34, at end insert—

("RTA section 114(2)

Causing or permitting a person under 21 to drive LGV or PCV in contravention of conditions of that person's licence.

Section 11 of this Act.")

The noble Lord said: The amendment adds a reference to the offence created by the offence created by Section 114(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as inserted by Schedule 2 to this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 33, line 37. at end insert—

(" "RTA section 92(7c)

Failure to deliver licence revoked by virtue of section 92(7A) to Secretary of State.

Summarily.

Level on the standard scale.

—

—

—"

The noble Lord said: Clause 5(4) inserts a new subsection (7a) in Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which empowers the Secretary of State to serve additional notices regarding a driver's medical disabilities and his fitness to drive. Such notices can have the effect of limiting a driver to vehicles of a particular class specified in the notice. A subsequent notice revokes any limited licence arising as a result of a previous notice. A new offence is created in subsection (7c) of failing without reasonable cause to deliver to the Secretary of State a limited licence that has been so revoked. This amendment adds a reference to that new offence to the list of offences in Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 regarding conditional offers of fixed penalties in Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 35, line 22, after (" "HGV" ") insert ("in both places where it occurs").
The noble Lord said: "HGV" appears in two places in the entry for regulations under Section 117 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. This amendment ensures that this reference to "HGV" will in both cases be replaced by "LGV or PCV". I beg to move.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 8 [Definitions of driver information systems etc.]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, leave out lines 25 and 26.
The noble Lord said: The amendment is aimed at obtaining clarification of the Government's intention and a possible rewording of the clause because, as the words stand, the data would be regarded as collected within the meaning of the Bill if, for example, an RAC patrolman in a rescue vehicle radioed in information about traffic congestion, an accident, road conditions or some other information about the road. It is possible that the wording of this and other subsections within Clause 8 could result in a licence being required for the dissemination of many types of driver information not intended to be covered by the Bill. Clarification is required, and I hope that the Minister will be able to help the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It may be helpful if, in responding to this amendment, I outline the sort of systems which we envisage will need to be licensed
656
under Part II of the Bill, as this is the first amendment relating to this part of the Bill.
Although Autoguide is the best known example in Great Britain of an advanced driver information system, Part II is designed also to provide for the introduction and regulation of other driver information systems which may be developed in the future. In preparing the legislation we have, however, tried to ensure that such future systems will not be subject to any unnecessary degree of regulation and control.
Clause 8(3) therefore defines a driver information system in a relatively general way, by reference to certain characteristics of the system. There is power, in Clauses 8(7) and 9(2) for the Secretary of State, by order, to remove particular systems, or particular descriptions of driver information, from the provisions of this part of the Bill.
Given the pace and unpredictability of future technological development and the scope to modify existing systems—possibly to make them compatible with systems in other countries—we cannot say exactly how the Secretary of State would be likely to use the powers. In very broad terms, however, we envisage that driver information systems will require a licence if they have two characteristics. The first would be that the equipment or information from the system was available to the general public. A system which was operated by, for example, a police force in order to give guidance only to police vehicles would not therefore require a licence.
The second test would be whether or not a system provided specific information to be acted on by individual drivers. A major part of the justification for licensing driver information systems stems from the need to ensure that they are operated in a safe and environmentally sensitive way. We see no need for special regulation of, for example, conventional radio traffic broadcasts. These transmit exactly the same information to thousands of motorists, regardless of their location.
In addition to these two tests, a licence would also be required if the operator of a driver information system needed the powers provided in Clause 12 of the Bill in order to install the necessary infrastructure in the road.
Having given that general explanation, perhaps I could consider the effect of the amendment. At present, Clause 8(3) defines a driver information system as a system which does one or both of two things. First, it could transmit to motor vehicles data from which driver information is derived. Data is defined, in Clause 8(5), in its scientific sense, which is why this part of the definition excludes conventional traffic broadcasts by radio.
The second type of system that falls within the definition is one that collects, stores or processes data from which the driver information is derived. It is however specified in lines 25 and 26 that the data has to be collected, in part at least, from motor vehicles. If that last requirement were to be deleted, as proposed in the amendment, certain self-contained systems could fall within the licensing requirement.
To give an example, it is possible that an invehicle device could be produced which would include a road

657
map encoded on a compact disc. The driver would have to select that part of the map appropriate to the area in which he was travelling. There would be no automatic route selection or information on current traffic conditions. It would not work from roadside beacons or collect data from the driver's vehicle. Essentially therefore it would be no more than an electronically produced map and we see no reason why such a device should require a special licence, any more than a conventional road atlas. However, if lines 25 and 26 were deleted as proposed in the amendment, such systems would fall within the licensing requirement.
As to the example which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. gave of the RAC man radioing back to base, whether he would need a licence would depend on the precise type of communication involved. However, we would not expect this to be caught by the definition of "data". If it were, there are powers for the Secretary of State to exclude systems from the licensing requirement. I hope that, with that rather lengthy explanation, I have been able to clarify the aim of Clause 8 and to satisfy the noble Lord's concern.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I must thank the noble Lord for his most detailed and helpful explanation. My noble friend and I will need to look at what he has said with some care, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 11, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Driver information obtained from public sources to facilitate efficient operation of route guidance services shall not be restricted to use in a driver information system if its dissemination to drivers generally in other ways can be beneficial to such drivers and advantageous in achieving satisfactory traffic movement.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is aimed at ensuring that information gathered, for example, by the police is not used solely in the context of the driver information system but that it is available for broadcasting distribution to as many drivers as possible, irrespective of whether or not their vehicles are fitted with information system equipment.
It would be unacceptable to all of us if essential information obtained, collated and processed at public expense were to be available only to a minority of drivers. We merely need to think of the situation in a hard winter, when local authorities and other road authorities will be gathering information about road conditions. If that were supplied and used only by those who were running, organising or funding an information system, it would be a misuse of public information. I hope that this amendment will do what we hope it will do, although, following the explanation in the case of the last amendment, I am not sure that it will. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position on this amendment as well as he did in relation to the previous amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I certainly agree with the spirit of this amendment but I cannot accept that it is necessary. The amendment would apply to any driver
658
information system which was licensed under the Bill, but it may be helpful to your Lordships if I discuss the probable effect of the amendment in relation to Autoguide.
As noble Lords who have had a demonstration of the Autoguide system will know, equipped vehicles not only receive information on routes and traffic conditions from roadside beacons but they will also be able to transmit back via the beacons information from which the central control can calculate road and traffic conditions in any particular area. It is this information coming hack front Autoguide vehicles that will form the basis of the guidance which the system transmits to drivers.
However, as the amendment recognises, there may also be advantages in supplementing this with information about roads and traffic conditions from public authorities. The three authorities which come immediately to mind are local highway authorities, the police and the Department of Transport.
Each of these public bodies has a direct interest in, to quote the words of the amendment, "achieving satisfactory traffic movement", and arrangements already exist for bringing it to the attention of drivers. Perhaps I may give two examples. First, many national and local radio stations issue frequent traffic broadcasts to alert drivers to particular problems so that they can avoid trouble spots. Work is in hand to improve the quality of traffic broadcasts. A particularly striking example is the BBC's radio data system (RDS). This system enables drivers whose cars have a special radio automatically to receive traffic broadcasts which are relevant to the area in which the particular vehicle is travelling. If necessary, the radio will switch itself on automatically or interrupt other broadcasts to bring the traffic bulletin to the attention of the driver. Information on current traffic conditions is provided by a number of sources, notably the police. The Department of Transport is collaborating with the BBC on an RDS pilot scheme which is planned to cover a large part of southern England.
A second example of the way in which information on traffic conditions can be made available to all drivers is through variable message signs. At present a number of these signs are installed on motorways, where they can give drivers advance warning of trouble ahead, such as fog. We can, however, see great potential for the wider use of such systems. They could, for example, be installed on the outskirts of towns and cities to indicate to drivers whether the city centre is congested; or, in central London, they could advise drivers of which bridges to use when crossing the river. The Department of Transport's research programme is examining how the scope for variable message signs could be improved.
I hope that these two brief examples have illustrated the way in which public bodies are already working to disseminate as widely as possible the driver information they collect. Accordingly, we do not feel that this amendment is necessary.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the noble Lord sits down, he has mentioned the BBC. Would he also pay tribute to the work done by all the companies covered by the Independent Broadcasting Authority

659
radio stations? When I was on the IBA I had a hand in starting some of these stations, and they have proved to be of enormous value to road users throughout the country because they transmit, normally every half hour, local traffic details.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In fact I did mention local radio stations in my reply and I would be happy to pay tribute to them. What I was describing so far as the BBC is concerned was a new system which they are developing.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Again I am very grateful to the Minister for the way he has explained the Government's position. He says that the amendment is unnecessary. I should like to study what he has said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Operators' licences]:
7 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 12, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The Secretary of State may grant a licence to operate a driver information system in a single area in England. Wales or Scotland on a trial basis (such a licence being referred to in this part of the Act as an "operator's licence")".
(2) The trial shall last for a period of not less than two years and shall be monitored by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State shall consult the local authority Associations and whatever other organisations he considers appropriate on the results of the trial and shall present to Parliament a report on the trial and the results of his consultation.
(4) Following the presentation of the report in accordance with subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State may grant an operator's licence in relation to any other area in England or Wales or Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete the existing subsection (1) of Clause 10 and to replace it with four new subsections. The existing subsection (1) states:
"The Secretary of State may grant a licence to operate a driver information system in any area in England or Wales or Scotland (such a licence being referred to in this Part of the Act as an 'operator's licence')."
Before explaining the amendment, may I thank the Minister for arranging for an excellent guideline for pilot Autoguide system proposals. I do not know how many other noble Lords have received it. It is issued by the Department of Transport in connection with this Bill but it is not part of the Bill. The Bill does not refer to guidance notes which must be followed. These notes are very useful and I shall make some reference to them, particularly in connection with this amendment. I thank the Minister for sending a copy of them, because they are extremely helpful.
At present, subsection (1) provides only that the Secretary of State be empowered to grant a licence to operate a driver information system anywhere in Great Britain. At Second Reading the noble Lord the Minister made clear that the system would be implemented gradually. He stated in col. 1064 that a
660
pilot scheme would be started, which could be fully evaluated. That is the purpose of the new subsection (1) as in the amendment. The reference to starting with a pilot scheme, however, does not appear in the Bill. The new subsection (1) provides that a pilot scheme be in a single area. When I refer to the guidance notes, 1 find that paragraph (8) would appear to empower the Secretary of State to have more than one trial scheme. Again, this is not in the Bill.
The new subsection (2) of the amendment would provide that a trial be for a minimum period of not less than two years during which the pilot scheme would be monitored. The guidance notes say it should be for a minimum of three years. We would not argue as to whether it should be two or three years, but we are saying that it must be a minimum of two years.
Subsection (3) which we propose would impose a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult with local authority associations and whatever other organisations he considered appropriate on the results of the trial. At Second Reading the Minister stated that local authorities should be involved in the monitoring of a pilot scheme. Again, this is not in the Bill.
Further, the guidance notes contain a great deal of reference, but there is little or no reference to the involvement of local government through their local authority associations. In fact, there is very little reference to the position of local government in the guidance notes. It is essential that monitoring of the pilot scheme be written into the Bill, but there is no reference to that. We have the Minister's assurance that this will be done. Obviously it must be done; otherwise it would make nonsense of issuing further licences for new schemes in the future; but there is no reference to it in the Bill.
I emphasise that it is important that the existence of the pilot scheme and the arrangement for its monitoring be written into the Bill. There are a number of reasons for that, one of which is to remove the scope for possible commercial pressures being placed on the Government to extend Autoguide beyond the original pilot area in advance of the experience in that area being monitored, assessed and discussed with local authority associations and with other organisations. In order to avoid that, we need to have that sort of safeguard in the Bill.
We should also ensure that local highway authorities nationally, including those not directly affected by the pilot scheme, be given the opportunity to comment on the impact of an Autoguide scheme which could well be extended to their own area at a later date. Therefore, we need to ensure that information be given out about the monitoring of the scheme.
We must also ensure that the pilot scheme be operated for a sufficiently long period of time to enable any problems or difficulties to be identified and, where possible, resolved. The guidance notes suggest a minimum of three years for a trial scheme—we propose to write into the Bill by amendment a minimum of two years—but there is no reference to that in the Bill.
Guidance Note No. 22 states only that the Secretary of State will wish to reserve the right to invite local highway authorities, local authority associations and the police to participate in the monitoring and evaluation of a pilot scheme. But that is merely a guidance note; there is no reference to it in the Bill.
Our proposed subsection (4) would provide that after the presentation of the report on monitoring the Secretary of State may then grant a licence for a scheme anywhere in Great Britain. In other words, we are not endeavouring to kill the scheme. We are saying, as we said on Second Reading, that we believe it could be very helpful, but that surely many of the points raised in the guidance notes should be in the Bill. In our amendment we have picked out four items which are suitable for a new subsection, having deleted the purely general subsection (1) as in the Bill.
In Guidance Note No. 19 we find that after the detailed consideration of the provisions of the trial scheme a possible second licence could be granted, but that would be a matter for negotiation between the Secretary of State and the promoter. That is repeated in Guidance Note No. 20 concerning a possible second 12-year licence.
Some minimum requirements are set out in Annex 2 of the guidance notes. It is imperative that consideration be given to them, and surely they can be considered only by discussion with local authority associations and the other organisations concerned, particularly those which are highway authorities.
Not only is the AMA, of which 1 am the president, in favour of the amendment and the four new subsections, but also are the Association of County Councils and the Association of London Authorities. Therefore, a large section of local authorities believes that it is essential that such points be written into the Bill.
I emphasise that no matter how excellent the points made in the guidance notes may be they are nothing to do with the Bill because they are not in the Bill. There is no mention even that guidance notes to which attention should be given must be issued. The four points which I have listed in the amendment are simple points which are essential to help to make the scheme and the monitoring a success. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I have great sympathy with the suggestion that there should be some reference to consultation with local authorities in the monitoring process. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that that would be better written in the Bill rather than in guidance notes, since those do not bind anybody, certainly not the next Secretary of State for Transport, nor an incoming government.
There is one thing about this amendment which worries me slightly: the idea that this should be a single area only. It seems to me that there might be circumstances in which it might be wished to have more than one area, particularly if more than one system is being contemplated. Even with one system, even if Autoguide is the only system which swings into action, it might be felt necessary to have trial areas in different locations, one in a highly urbanised area and one in a less urbanised area. With that
662
qualification I should like to support the amendment and to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I think I understand the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in moving this amendment. I do not wish to criticise my noble friend the Minister on this point and it is a little difficult to relate what the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, seeks to do with the guidelines, but like him I should prefer to see some parts of the guidelines incorporated in the Bill before us. I suspect that we shall come on to that at a later stage.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there should be some reference in the Bill to the monitoring of the situation. Although I am not too concerned about the list of names, it may be thought by the Committee to be necessary to set out who should be consulted and who should be part of the monitoring body. It would seem to be reasonably obvious that it could not be the department alone; nor, indeed, the operator of an initial licence.
Where the amendment constrains activities is that, according to my understanding, there are other regions around the country in which different operators are likely to attempt to make use of systems of that nature. There is undoubtedly a desire on the part of potential licensees to make better use of the road network system. Autoguide compatible systems, which are being researched widely, may through this proposed amendment produce quite an unacceptable delay in commercial terms in developing the various technologies. That could well be detrimental to what we are seeking to achieve.
Further, the commercial viability and the effectiveness in improving the use of roads is much dependent on the take-up, in other words the people who will buy the system and install it in their vehicles. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. refers to a trial period. That suggests an initial limitation on the infrastructure and the number of users who could be brought in at that time. In my view that casts doubt on the ability of a licensee to continue with the system.
At the end of a two-year trial period, when the holder of a provisional licence, so to speak, may well have spent £25 million to £50 million, certainly a considerable sum of money, he wants to feel that there is some real opportunity of gaining the full 12-year licence which is envisaged in the guidelines. That again, is not set down in the Bill so we do not know what the Secretary of State might feel during that period. If we went down the road that the amendment suggests, as it is currently written, we could well inhibit potential licensees. That should be avoided at all costs.
I do not reject the amendment out of hand. Obviously I want to listen carefully to what my noble friend the Minister has to say. But I ask the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to have a fairly open mind as to the full implications of what he is proposing. I go with him in suggesting that, having had the Autoguide guidelines for only 36 hours, we might want to take account of what is written in the Bill and the guidelines and align that with what my noble friend has to say in response to the comments we have both made.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I wish to support the development of the Autoguide system. I shall express the concern, although I do not think it is very necessary, that we should not amend the Bill in any way that would handicap its development. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, supporting the principle of the scheme, as he did on Second Reading, because I think it has a valuable prospect of helping traffic movement in big cities.
The point that my noble friend Lord Lucas is making is one that I should like warmly to support.
I am sure that the Minister is taking care, as he must, to preserve the commercial viability of the scheme. I am sure that he is doing that in the terms in which the Bill is now drafted. I have not had the advantage of seeing the guidelines, but I can imagine the kind of points that are made in the document. They all sound quite sensible. I support entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about the need to consult with local authorities. That is necessary if for no other reason than the fact that, if they were hostile to the scheme, it would undoubtedly fail. After all, the beacons have to be planted in the areas of local authorities, and if they wished to frustrate the scheme they could easily do so. So it is plain common sense that they should be brought in from the beginning, they should be told what is happening, their views should be consulted and they should be carried along with the scheme. I am sure that in that way not only could we ensure that local authorities did not oppose the scheme but we should obtain their assistance. That involves a good deal more work for my noble friend and his advisers, particularly when one considers the number of local authorities involved in London, for example. But it is essential that local authorities should be brought in from the beginning and that their goodwill should be won.
On the commercial viability of these schemes, a simple pilot scheme will run into a cost of several million pounds. Therefore local authorities are casting their bread upon the waters. It is most important that the prospect should flow from that that the major scheme will then be developed. Again local authorities will have to lay out a lot of money, but they will be able to see the prospect of making the scheme a financial success.
I give my noble friend warm support and warm congratulations that he and his advisers in the Department of Transport have in this case grasped time by the forelock in preparing for the development of the brand new scheme and for drawing up the necessary legislation so quickly. That is all quite admirable. I am sure that my noble friend will have a helpful answer to the amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not feel it necessary to press it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend. The main effect of this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained, would be to provide that any trials of driver information systems should be subject to certain requirements. They should last for not less than two years and they should be monitored by the Secretary of State, who would be required to consult local authority
664
associations and others on the results of the trial and to present a report to Parliament.
I think that the guidelines for the submission of proposals for the Autoguide system in London which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State published yesterday make it clear that the Government are thinking on very much the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Incidentally, I sent a copy of these guidelines to a number of noble Lords who had their names down to amendments in this part of the Bill. I shall certainly send a copy to my noble friend Lord Nugent, although of course the guidelines are available in the Library.
The guidelines make it clear that a London Autoguide system will be in two distinct parts. The first licence would be for the operation of a substantial pilot scheme covering part of the London area. The second and longer licence for the provision of a fully commercial Autoguide system throughout London would be granted only if the operation of the pilot scheme were judged to be satisfactory.
The guidelines propose that the licence for the pilot scheme will last for three years, of which one year will be for the monitoring and evaluation of the system by the operator and the Department of Transport. Our judgment is that a monitoring period of one year will be sufficient to allow the operation of the pilot scheme to he fully evaluated. As to consultation, the Department of Transport is currently discussing with local authority associations and the police how they might be involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the pilot Autoguide scheme. We shall be meeting the local authority associations on 8th February and we shall have made sure by then that they have copies of the guidelines and that they can be discussed at that meeting.
We have not so far undertaken that the detailed results obtained from the monitoring of the pilot Autoguide scheme should be laid before Parliament. However, in view of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and others, and the obvious interest in Autoguide both inside and outside Parliament, I am happy to give that undertaking today. While as I have indicated, we very much agree with the thinking behind this amendment, we are not disposed to accept it. We must bear in mind that Part II of the Bill is concerned not only with Autoguide but also with other types of driver information systems. Some of the systems which may in the future fall to be licensed under the Bill have not even been developed.
We think that it would be quite wrong to impose through the Bill too rigid or bureaucratic a framework for the introduction of such a system. I think that my noble friend Lord Lucas and my noble friend Lord Nugent made that point. It would be wrong for example to specify that trials must last for two years, one year or some other fixed period. Once experience has been gained it may be that a much shorter trial would be sufficient. In relation to consultation, it is quite possible that in future a number of fairly similar systems would be developed. It may well be unnecessary to consult the local authority associations on the results of every trial that was undertaken.

665
In the light of those points, and in particular the undertaking that I have given that the results of the monitoring and evaluation of the pilot Autoguide scheme in London will be made available to Parliament, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on the amendment and to the Minister for his reply. I should like to make just one or two comments.
I referred to guidance notes, the Minister has referred to guidance notes, and other Members of the Committee have also referred to them. In the past few years there have been Bills in which it has been laid down that guidance notes will be issued and that specified bodies must take note of those guidelines. Not in this Bill: there are helpful guidelines, but they are not to be referred to in the Bill.
As the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Lucas, have suggested, it may be desirable to try out different schemes. However, there must obviously be some limit because we are considering a completely new system, one which we all hope will be successful. In the course of monitoring the system all kinds of problems may be found. Therefore at the outset there must be some limitation on the number of schemes which the Secretary of State may feel inclined to authorise.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, supported my view that a number of the points set out in the guidelines should be incorporated in the Bill. Monitoring is the most important aspect in relation to Clause 10. If the monitoring is not carried out properly and if it is not considered by the appropriate organisations one could end up with a scheme that is undesirable or it could be killed through lack of information. That is why we are so concerned that a number of the points from the guidelines should be incorporated in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked one very important question: who will monitor the system? We know that TRRL will undertake some monitoring and present its results to the Department of Transport. However, who will be the monitoring body? It should be an independent body which monitors the scheme.
I am very pleased that a number of those who took part in the debate agreed that local authorities should be considered. There are later amendments dealing with the position of local authorities before any scheme is put into operation. Amendment No. 39 proposes that local authority associations and whatever other organisations the Minister considers appropriate should be consulted on the results of the trial.
The Minister said that the guidelines show that the Government are thinking on the same lines as I am. That is very helpful and we welcome that statement. However, if the Minister considers that we are thinking on the same lines then surely he would agree that the really important points dealing with the trial area, monitoring and the results of that monitoring should be written into the Bill.
666
Nowhere in the amendment do I refer to Autoguide. The Bill does not refer to Autoguide. We readily accept that that is the name given to one system and that there may be other systems which it may be appropriate to consider. I am very pleased that the Minister has given an assurance that a report on the results of the monitoring of the Autoguide system will be presented to Parliament. I think that that is most important.
I did not expect that the Committee would accept an amendment which deletes one subsection and puts forward new ones in its place. However, we believe that those four subsections are worthy of consideration. It is obvious from the discussion that has taken place that other Members of the Committee think the same. I hope that. in the light of the fact that he considers that the Government and I are thinking on the same lines, the Minister will pick out those items in the guidelines which arc vital and which should be included in the Bill.
The Minister gave an excellent and detailed reply at Second Reading. We hope that he will not be shifted about, but the noble Lord may not be the Minister when the monitoring is undertaken; there may not even be the same government. Therefore some of those points ought to be included in the Bill.
I return to the points which I made in connection with a previous amendment. I accept the statements made by a number of Members of the Committee with legal expertise who believe that it is what is set out in the Bill which counts and not what the Minister says, however excellent that may be, and not guidelines for which there is no provision in the Bill. Those points must be included in the Bill itself.
I readily withdraw the amendment. I am delighted with the Minister's assurance that a report on the results of the monitoring will be presented to Parliament. I should like the Minister to do what we shall do£to consider very carefully what has been said in this debate and consider which are the important issues which should be put into the Bill. I should prefer the Minister to bring forward the issues which he believes ought to be in the Bill rather than bringing forward an amendment myself.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wishes to say something before 1 sit down.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should like to say something before the noble Lord decides what to do.
I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could advise the Committee£perhaps not this evening£as to the status of the Autoguide guidelines. It was my understanding that those guidelines were produced for the benefit of those putting forward proposals for consideration by the department for the issue of a pilot study licence. It would be helpful if we could separate the guidelines from what will become law£and we have been advised that, in the light of events, some parts of the Bill will be subject to amendment as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. The position would be much clearer to both the licence applicant and Parliament if we knew which parts of the guidelines were appropriate to each of those issues.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I was just about to make a point in connection with the guidelines when my noble friend spoke. There exists perhaps a slight misunderstanding. Those are not guidance notes, they are invitations to submit proposals which would, we hope, form the basis of a legally binding licence between the Secretary of State and the Autoguide operator. They are therefore rather more powerful than the guidelines which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had in mind. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and other noble Lords have said on this amendment and will bear that in mind if anything needs to be done.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord makes his decision I think it would be right to thank the Minister for what he said about reporting back to Parliament the results of monitoring. I should not like that to go unnoticed. Perhaps I did not quite hear the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and for the further comments of the Minister. When I referred to guidance notes I meant the same thing as these guidelines. I understand exactly why they are issued and 1 have also read the annexes which I find extremely interesting. However, they still do not have any legal standing. They only represent what the Government intend the scheme to follow and the framework within which the guidelines shall be operated.
There are some very important points, particularly on the subject of the trial scheme, monitoring and the fact that afterwards organisations, including the local authority organisations, will be consulted, to which there is no reference in the Bill. These are important issues which we believe ought to be in the Bill. I should like the Minister to consider the matter in the light of those comments and the observations of other noble Lords, and to examine which matters in these guidelines it may be appropriate to extract and make legally binding in the Bill rather than have as guidelines which the Government hope other schemes will follow. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Davidson: I beg to move that the Committee stage be adjourned and that we resume at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.32 until 8.30 p.m.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 12, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. We propose the deletion of subsection (2) of this clause. Subsection (2) provides that more than one operator's licence may be granted for the same area but that a licence is not assignable. We can readily accept the position that the licence cannot be assignable: that it cannot be transferred to someone else at the operator's desire. However, these Notes on Clauses merely repeat the words that I have read out;
668
they do not give an explanation of them. We should like to know the Government's intention and how this would work.
On a previous amendment it was mentioned that there might be a desire to have different schemes in different parts of the country and perhaps different schemes using different types of projects. However, the subsection that we suggest is deleted provides that,
"More than one operator's licence may be granted for the same area".
I raised this at Second Reading. Despite the very detailed replies that we received on many points from the Minister, I do not think that we had any explanation on how a scheme of this kind could work if one has two separate schemes within the same designated area. That is the point that I wish to make with this probing amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord has described this as a probing amendment. My questions were similar. As one reads the Bill it appears that there can be one scheme by operator X, and another by operator Y. The Autoguide guidelines insist on compatibility in adjoining areas, whereas the Bill is continually referring to the same area. I could not quite follow that point. I shall be glad to hear the Minister on the subject.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am glad to have the opportunity to give an explanation as to why subsection (2) is in the Bill. The removal of subsection (2) would have a number of effects. One would be to prevent different types of driver information systems from operating in the same area. If for example an Autoguide system was licensed for the London area it would not be possible then to license in London another type of system which provided a different driver information service.
The removal of subsection (2) would also prevent more than one operator's licence for the same type of system being granted for the same area. For Autoguide it is certainly true that we have invited proposals for the award of one licence for the London area. We do not at present expect there to be competing Autoguide operations in one area. But there is no reason why in London or elsewhere there could not eventually be driver information systems provided by more than one operator. There might be one organisation which collects and processes data and another which actually transmits it to road users. In that case both would need licences for the same area. It might also be that operational areas could eventually overlap.
Finally we must bear in mind that the Bill is designed to facilitate the introduction of driver information systems which may be developed in the future. It is possible that it will be perfectly feasible to license more than one operation of a system in the same area.
The overall effect of this amendment would therefore be to remove the flexibility necessary to ensure that future developments in driver information technology can be dealt with under the licensing arrangements. It would also prevent competition among different operators of systems,

669
each striving to provide the best possible information to drivers. I hope that that explains fully the reasoning behind this subsection.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The first observations that he made heartened me. He gave an explanation that I understood. However, the possibility of having two entirely different types of project in the same area rather confounds me. Perhaps it is because I am unable to understand what can be done with modern technology. However. the idea that the same infrared lights can be used for one system and for another fills me with a little awe, quite frankly, as well as the competition between drivers as to which system they will have. I can foresee a glorious mess.
1 shall not accept that part of the Minister's reply. I do not believe that it is intended to be part of the Bill; it is a matter for the future. However, he used the words "in the same area". It is obvious that when I am referring to an area it is different from the area that the Minister has in mind. 1 referred to "area" as being the area covered by the licence, not the whole of the London area. If it refers to the London area, I can understand that one might have one scheme in Islington and another somewhere else. Should there not be some definition in the Bill as to what is referred to by "area"?
Subsection (1) states:
"The Secretary of State may grant a licence to operate a driver information system in any area in England or Wales".
The Minister obviously believes that it refers to anywhere in London, England or Wales, whereas I am interpreting it as being the area to be covered by the operator's licence. My interpretation is obviously not the right one. Should there not be a definition in the Bill of what "area" is intended to mean?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that I should look at this point. I had not seen any difficulty until this stage with "area". The London area, for instance, might be granted a licence for the whole of the area within the M.25. It might be split into boroughs, or north or south of the Thames. However, whether we need a definition of "area" is a matter that I shall look into.
On the point of the two types in the same area, the systems might be quite different. There might be one for heavy goods vehicles and another for cars. There is no reason why both should need roadside beacons such as Autoguide has. We are trying to look into the future, as the noble Lord suggested. We do not know necessarily what might come up. We know about the Autoguide system, which is on trial at the moment. However, other systems may be invented in the future and we wish the Bill to be able to cope with them as and when they arise.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to look at that matter. It is possible that my understanding of what is meant by "area" needs a definition and what the Minister says requires no definition. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 13, line 15, at beginning insert ("subject to subsection (8A) below,").
The noble Lord said: I believe that it will be convenient if with Amendment No. 41 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 49, with particular emphasis on Amendment No. 49 which contains the substance of the three amendments. The purpose of these amendments is to limit the classes of road down which vehicles can be directed—it would seem obvious that these essentially should be main roads only—and to provide proper consultation before any road can be included in a scheme. The classes of road listed in the amendments are those which form the primary route network in any area and are therefore intended for through traffic. The amendments would therefore prevent the information systems from being used to direct vehicles down rat runs.
At Second Reading the Minister referred to fear which had been expressed by a number of noble Lords during the debate that the system may result in rat runs. He said:
"We have no reason to think that Autoguide will increase the overall volume of traffic on minor roads. Main roads generally offer the quicker … times. The problems is … choosing the right main road, which is … where Autoguide can help by giving advance warning of congestion".—[Official Report, 15/12/1988, col. 1066.]
The Minister seemed to express approval of this kind of amendment, that we ought to be defining the roads we want and concentrating on the primary road system.
It should also be noted that the Bill gives neither local authorities nor the residents concerned any input as to the roads to be used and would allow the Secretary of State full power to direct traffic down any road however unsuitable. I know that the Minister will say that no Secretary of State would do such a thing, but Secretaries of State change and one Secretary of State may think differently from another. In our view, local knowledge of the area and the roads to be covered is essential.
It may be thought that the guidelines to which we have referred, issued by the Department of Transport, cover these points, but once again I emphasise that they are not in the Bill. For example, paragraph 14 of the guidelines refers to roads, but not to any consultation with the highway or any other local authority. The guidelines refer also to the use of below class B roads for other than originating or terminating traffic. How will the system determine what is originating traffic and which is terminating traffic? The cars will not have notes on them. That is a point in the guidelines which, frankly, I did not understand. Both the AMA and the Association of County Councils urge that the system should be confined in the main to the primary network. It is on that basis that I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not he surprised that I seek to influence the Committee in opposing this amendment. In fact I gave notice of this during Second Reading. I do not believe that it is practical to impose the kind of conditions which the amendment seeks to do. If we are to take full

671
advantage of this system, we must take full advantage of the roads available on which the system can operate. Of course there are roads which should not bear any greater level of traffic. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—he will forgive me if I got it wrong—who was talking about playroads, roads closed off to through traffic, roads for play areas, for access only or closed for other reasons. The rest of the roads should be utilised for traffic.
If the Autoguide system can sensibly utilise such roads I do not think it should be inhibited, which I believe will be the effect of this amendment. Surely it is one of the primary objectives to use the current road network and to use alternative routes where there are no penalties or penalising issues at stake. To accept what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, seeks to do would affect the commercial viability of the scheme. At present we are considering a totally new system. We have proposed a trial period during which monitoring will be carried out. It might be better at the end of that period to see what effects there are.
One can easily envisage people with knowledge of the Autoguide system, perhaps being subscribers, but also having particular local knowledge. They may decide one afternoon. because of what they had heard, to abandon Autoguide and drive down the left-hand and right-hand roads, whatever they may be. I believe noble Lords opposite understand what I am saying. If the Autoguide system is then to be prohibited from directing traffic, in effect that will encourage the non-subscriber to seek the alternative. It is far better that the whole system he embraced, as it were in one, that the intelligence gathered by the system is used to the best advantage using all the roads that lawfully can properly be used for moving traffic and not just for "parking areas".
I cannot understand the practicability of doing what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggests in his amendment. I hope that he will see that reason and not press his amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his explanation of this group of amendments. I understand his concern that Autoguide and similar systems should not lead to an increase in traffic on unsuitable roads, or "rat runs" as they are often called. We too wish to make sure that this does not happen. It might be helpful to the Committee if I explained the way in which my right honourable friend proposes to tackle the issue and exercise the licensing powers which he seeks.
As the Committee is aware, the guidelines were issued yesterday, inviting the private sector to make proposals for the operation of an Autoguide system in London. The guidelines make it very clear that decisions on the system will be taken in two distinct stages, and indeed that there will be two separate licences. The first licence would be for the operation of a substantial pilot scheme covering part of the London area. This would involve perhaps 1,000 vehicles, and its operation would be monitored by the Department of Transport and the Autoguide operator over a period of one year. The department is discussing with local authority associations and the
672
police how it might be involved in monitoring the pilot scheme. The guidelines make clear that the second and longer licence for the provision of a fully commercial Autoguide system throughout London would be granted only if the operation of the pilot scheme were judged to be satisfactory.
There would be two main tests; first, that the operation of the system had not had, and was not likely to have, a detrimental effect on road safety, and, secondly, that the operation had not of itself created—and was not likely to create—an increase in the volume of traffic using unsuitable roads. I think that these guidelines and the detailed technical annexes which accompany them make it absolutely clear that a commercial Autoguide licence will be awarded only after careful appraisal of the pilot scheme by the Secretary of State.
A major reason for having the pilot scheme is that we need to gain experience of precisely how Autoguide would operate. Research already done through the Transport and Road Research Laboratory suggests that an Autoguide system would lead to a transfer of traffic from minor to major roads and that drivers in equipped vehicles would benefit from this overall reduction in congestion. This research is however based on computer models and not on the sort of large-scale pilot scheme we are proposing and which would involve studies of individual vehicles on a variety of routes.
Main roads generally offer the best journey times. The problem is choosing the right main road. This is exactly where Autoguide can help by assisting that choice and enabling the driver to anticipate congestion. Individual highway authorities can also help by improving traffic signing and by creating and maintaining the best possible conditions on the main network, so encouraging through traffic to use the most suitable routes. Local highway authorities have wide powers already to restrict traffic and classes of traffic on particular roads. Autoguide operators would have to incorporate these restrictions in their guidance information. Moreover, a route guidance system must be able to direct drivers from the minor road network to the selected main road.
I hope that Members will appreciate from what I have said that it would be premature to provide in the Bill that a driver information system such as Autoguide could operate only in relation to main roads. This would introduce rigidity which could generally restrict the value of a pilot scheme and a subsequent commercial system. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. A more appropriate control is, I believe, through conditions in the licence to be awarded by the Secretary of State. Clause 10(8)(b) would enable the Secretary of State, in licensing systems, to impose conditions about the roads on which those systems could direct drivers. This would allow the Secretary of State the flexibility to impose conditions which are tailored to a particular system and to the particular area and time of day and night in which that system is operating, and to different classes of vehicle. The guidelines to which I have referred make clear our intention to use the power as in Clause 10 to prevent Autoguide traffic using unsuitable roads, should such restrictions be necessary.

673
To limit Autoguide and other driver information systems to main roads as defined in the amendment before Autoguide has been properly evaluated and before other systems have been developed would, in our view, be far too restrictive. We need to encourage the commercial development of systems such as Autoguide which could be a great benefit to drivers of equipped vehicles and to traffic in general. At the same time the systems must be operated in a way which does not produce undesirable side effects. We believe that the clauses drafted, the use to which we intend to put them, and our intention to involve highway authorities and the police, provide the right balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked what we meant by "originating and terminating traffic" and how it could be distinguished by an Autoguide system. It is the function of the origin or destination of a particular journey as known by the in-vehicle equipment and the vehicle's distance from the last beacon which it passed.
TRRL research, referred to at Annex 3 to the guidelines, suggests that a full Autoguide system would produce a slight shift of traffic away from minor roads on to major roads and another shift away from congested streets mainly in central London to slightly congested streets away from the centre. That is what the pilot scheme will show us.
I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I omitted to refer to a view expressed to us by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. It has emphasised the fact that the majority of road accidents which occur in residential areas involve the most vulnerable of road users; that is, children, the elderly, pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore, road safety is most important in considering on which roads vehicles should travel.
The Minister said that the police and local authorities would be involved in the selection of the roads. I hope that the Minister will consider writing that provision into the Bill. I accept his assurance but, as has already been said, it may be that the present Secretary of State will not be in office. We need to have written into the Bill the provision that the consultation on the roads to be used will involve the local authorities and the police.
I readily accept that there must be a certain amount of flexibility and that we should not be too rigid in our arrangements. However, we must ensure that there are safeguards for the local highway authority and for residents in puny, residential roads. Our interests cannot be only the commercial interests of the operators. That will be very important because if the operators discover that it is not viable we shall not have an Autoguide or similar scheme. Other factors need consideration and I should like the Minister to consider whether they should be written into the Bill.
Having heard his explanation, although still believing that these matters should be written into the Bill in some form, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
674
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 13, line 23, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Its intention is to omit subsection (8)(c) on page 13 of the Bill. The paragraph provides that the Minister may specify,
"the classes of motor vehicles to whose drivers route guidance may or may not be given or the circumstances in which it may or may not be given to such drivers".
I should like an explanation of what is meant by that and how the Minister will differentiate between one class of driver and another. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The purpose of paragragh (c) of Clause 10(8) is to enable the Secretary of State, through the licence which he will issue to operators of driver information systems, to ensure that traffic is not guided onto unsuitable roads. This paragraph, together with paragraph (b), would enable licence conditions to be precisely tailored to the needs of particular areas. The licence could, for example, specify that while an Autoguide system could direct cars on to certain roads it could not direct heavy goods vehicles—or, as they are to be called under Part I of the Bill, large goods vehicles—on to them. The Secretary of State would be able, by virtue of paragraph (c), to include licence conditions to the effect that vehicles, or particular classes of vehicles—such as lorries—could use only certain roads at particular times of the day or during particular periods. To take two examples, the conditions could be used to divert through traffic away from urban area at night time or away from central London on ceremonial occasions.
In short, this provision will help to ensure that systems are operated in a safe and environmentally safe way. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The Bill merely refers to those vehicles using route guidance. I am curious to find out what would happen if a lorry driver just decided that he would go on a particular prohibited road, if he did not have a guidance system in the cab. One does not need to have a system. It would obviously be helpful to some, but it may be a long time before the large goods vehicles have it. Therefore, will those lorries not be able to go as and where they like?
Lord Barabazon of Tara: That is not a matter for this Bill. If there is a lorry ban in effect, as there is in the City of London at night, and the lorry driver breaks the ban, then that is an offence. This Bill makes no difference to that situation. The only difference which this Bill makes is that if he has an Autoguide system, that will direct him away at that time of night and will, therefore, prevent him from committing that offence.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 13, line 28, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: I propose this amendment because there are those who consider that, as the driver information scheme is a commercial undertaking, it should be wholly and not partially private and commercial. Therefore, that demands that all the necessary charges should be fixed by commercial judgment and market forces and not necessarily by the Secretary of State, not necessarily by what one might describe as a ministerial decree at some time.
I notice—and this is a difficulty to which I referred earlier this evening when discussing the role of Autoguide guidelines—that the question of those charges are to be waived by the Secretary of State at this time. Where does that leave us? It seems to me that the Bill says that the Secretary of State can fix the charges and the guidelines say that he is not going to. In that case, why give the Secretary of State the power in the Bill to do something which he has specifically said he will not do for 15 years—the three pilot years plus the 12-year licence? Whichever way one looks at the matter, 15 years is a long time to preserve one's position. Had it been a five-year period, I could perhaps have understood that. That is the purpose of my amendment and I should be glad to know what the Minister has to say on that subject. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In regard to this part of the Bill I do not believe that the Government can be accused of not looking far ahead, and hopefully they will not have to bring further legislation before the Chamber in the near future.
The provision is included in the Bill very much as a contingency measure. The pace of technology on driver information systems strongly suggests that there will be competition between different systems, and in those circumstances it will be in the operators' interests to keep prices to their customers as low as possible.
Even in the early days advanced systems such as Autoguide will face competition from more conventional sources of driver information, such as traffic broadcasts on the radio. The guidelines which have been issued to invite proposals for an Autoguide system in the London area make clear that the relevant operator's licence will not include a condition to control charges to users.
It is however just possible that at some time in the future a restriction on charges to users would be appropriate. It is conceivable—though, as I have indicated, in our view unlikely—that while Autoguide will become firmly established across the country, there will not be comparable development of competing systems. In those circumstances price restraint might be necessary. I should however make clear that, under the provisions of Clause 10, charges to users could be controlled only through a condition in an operator's licence. That licence would be the subject of free negotiation between the prospective operator and the Secretary of State. There could therefore be no question of the Secretary of State
676
unilaterally imposing a condition in relation to user prices. I hope that explanation will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation, which I accept. However, I should like to take up one point. It is conceivable—and those were the words used by my noble friend—that in the future, having expended some £30, £40 or £50 million on developing a system, an operator comes to the Secretary of State and says, "Now we have been through the monitoring process; I have done all you wanted. It has come out right. Can I have my 12-year licence?" "Oh yes," says the Secretary of State, "but technological advances have been such and such and such, and so I think I shall have to impose that which the law allows me to; namely, a certain restriction on charge". When one has expended some £30 or £40 million and one has to get a return, one will not start to argue about a few pounds licence money or royalties, or whatever it may be.
I find this provision inhibitive upon the potential traffic information system licensed applicant. I am disappointed that the Minister should feel it necessary to make that sort of provision. However, I do not propose to take this any further; I simply register a little unhappiness about the matter. I hope that that power will not be invoked certainly within 15 years from the time the first pilot scheme gets underway.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps my noble friend will give way. By turning to the guidelines one notes that they say that the licensee will have a pre-emptive right to a licence for a further 12 years after the three-year period.
Turning to the next paragraph, he will not use for London licences for these periods the power which the Bill would give him to regulate the charges. Therefore, he will have the full 12-year run.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am much obliged to my noble friend the Minister and 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): In calling Amendment No. 45, I have to announce that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, 51 and 52.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 13, line 32, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Deputy Chairman of Committees for his comments because orginally it was intended, not by me, that Amendment No. 45 would be taken with those amendments. We wanted to settle the position as to whether paragraph (f) should be included before we came to the subsequent amendments.
Perhaps I should say at this stage that there may be some Members of the Committee who wonder why, so far as the Opposition are concerned, no Divisions have been called. This is a non-political Bill. We have consciously decided to use the Committee stage of the

677
Bill to obtain from the Minister explanations on important points—which we are getting—so that we can decide what we shall do at the next stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his previous amendment, referred to paragraph (e), which gives one of the conditions which may be included in an operator's licence. This refers to charges which the licence holder may make for supplying a driver information system or other services. Paragraph (f), which I seek to delete, requires,
"the licence holder 10 furnish to the Secretary of State such information … as the Secretary of State requires and authorising the Secretary of State to make such use, including the sale, of the information as he thinks fit".
On Second Reading I questioned what was intended by what I gather to be the purport of the Bill: that the holder of the licence, the operator, may sell information but that equally the Bill seems to provide in paragraph (f) that the Secretary of State can request what information he requires from the operator and sell it, the Bill indicates, "as he thinks fit".
I had hoped to learn whether I was right. The Minister said that I referred to the Secretary of State's power to collect charges from users and he mentioned various other points in relation to Clause 10. He went on to say:
"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."—[Official Report, 15/12/88: col. 1065.)
I am certain that the Minister will agree that that does not answer whether or not I am correct in saying that the licence holder may sell the information and also that the Secretary of State may request whatever information he desires and sell it "as he thinks fit".
It may be my innocence in some of these technological matters but I do not understand what is meant by the fact that both the licence holder and the Secretary of State can sell the same information. Is there any limit to what use the Secretary of State may make of the information? Paragraph (f) concludes:
"the Secretary of State to make such use, including the sale, of the information as he thinks fit".
Therefore, he can use that information "as he thinks fit". What is intended by that? I should like the Minister to explain the point of these provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In responding to this amendment, perhaps I should start by explaining the purpose of paragraph (f). The Department of Transport and local highway authorities currently devote considerable resources to collecting information on patterns of vehicle movement and on monitoring traffic speeds. The information is required to enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to take decisions on the need for road improvements and on traffic management issues. This information is also required by local highway authorities and for traffic research.
Paragraph (f) was drafted with the Autoguide system of driver information particularly in mind. Part of the Autoguide system involves the collection
678
by a central computer of data about the speed of traffic on individual stretches of road or about delays at junctions. The central computer will therefore hold the sort of information which would be of benefit to all those involved in tackling traffic problems.
Given the potential use and value of this information, subsection (9) of Clause 10 provides power for the Secretary of State to pay the licence-holder for it. As regards the Secretary of State demanding free of charge information from the licensee. this would be a condition in the licence and would therefore be negotiated between the Secretary of State and the licensee. There is no question of the Secretary of State being able to demand information against the will of the operator free of charge. I hope I have been able to explain the purpose of this paragraph satisfactorily to the noble Lord.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I shall have to read very carefully what he said. I am not so certain that one of the points he made is covered in the Bill. Therefore I shall read very carefully what he said and then decide what may be done at the next stage. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 13, line 32, at beginning insert ("subject to subsections (11) and (12) below").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 51 and 52. I use the word "Autoguide" though we are talking about the driver information system. Autoguide can easily be used to track vehicles through the road network. It relies upon having individually identified vehicles feeding back real time information to the central control to give reliable directions. The purpose of the amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 52, is therefore to protect civil liberties by ensuring that the Secretary of State can only normally obtain information about traffic flows in general and not about specific vehicles and that information cannot be obtained on line.
Should there be any specific occasion when the Secretary of State, or, through him, the police, wish to track a vehicle through the driver information system, it is suggested that the Secretary of State should obtain a warrant. I understand that he can do that very simply. Amendment No. 51 states,
"The Secretary of State shall release any information he obtains under subsection (8)(f) above to the relevant highway authority, upon the request of that highway authority, without charge".
The purpose of this amendment is to allow local authorities free access to any information obtained by the Secretary of State as regards their particular area. That seems a logical thing to do because we wish to have this free play of information from the highway authority to the Secretary of State for the driver information system. Equally we wish the information to flow back the other way. In particular the point of Amendment No. 51 is for that to be possible. In such a case the information should be supplied free of charge. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In this group of amendments the noble Lord raises an issue that is probably dear to the hearts of Members of the Committee: it is the question of privacy and the invasion of privacy. When speaking about this series of amendments he has been speaking about tracking. The amendments ask for the protection of Autoguide. I take the noble Lord's point that we are talking about driver information systems (loosely called Autoguide at this time) and access by the Secretary of State. Obviously we are not talking about a particular individual, but rather about a government office of state.
I believe that some potential users are certainly not going to take very kindly to any invasion of their privacy. Equally and conversely, a useful vehicle security function might well be provided at the owner's request. An additional feature may be purchased by that user so that there is no misunderstanding. A better way of dealing with the problem that the noble Lord foresees and to which I generally subscribe might be for the Committee to frame an amendment which would legislate against the inclusion of any compulsory vehicle identity to the system. The security aspect could then be dealt with separately and there would be no fear of tracking. One can envisage, unhappily, circumstances in which the authorities may wish to track. Someone could break into the system and track a vehicle, so identifying when a user arrived at this home in order to ambush him or something of that nature.
1 do not believe that I am wasting the Committee's time in posing questions of this kind. They have to be dealt with. I do not suggest that I know the answers. If I knew the answers I would have put down an amendment. I see problems. I should like my noble friend to say that he will look again at the matter and that perhaps we may discuss it before the next stage of the Bill. I should like not to see problems with this kind of system which will be so hugely beneficial and advantageous to us all.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: New subsection (11), proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would require the Secretary of State to make available to the relevant highway authority any information which he acquires from the licence holder. The information would be given to the highway authority free of charge, on request. We cannot accept this new provision.
The Government's firm policy is that Autoguide should be promoted by the private sector. The information on traffic movements derived from the system will be part of the return on the capital investment. That is why subsection (9) provides power for the Secretary of State to pay for such information. It seems to us unreasonable and indeed unrealistic to demand that the Secretary of State should then release that information free of charge.
As I have said, we do however recognise that the information will be of value not only to the Secretary of State but also to local highway authorities. The guidelines for the submission of proposals for an Autoguide system in London make this clear. In particular, they specify that one of the considerations
680
in assessing proposals for a commercial scheme will be whether they include proposals for the provision of traffic and journey time data to highway authorities and the police. The guidelines also refer to research work which the Department of Transport proposes to undertake to identify data which an Autoguide system could produce and which would be of value to highway authorities and others.
In summary, we very much hope that the data which is collected by the Autoguide system will prove to be of value to highway authorities; and as I have indicated, we are taking positive steps to encourage the transfer of data. We do not however believe that it would be reasonable to require the Secretary of State to release the information free of charge to highway authorities when he himself is likely to have to pay for the information. It would be better for individual authorities, each of which may have different requirements, to make their own arrangements directly with the Autoguide operator.
New subsection (12) is, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained, concerned with protecting the privacy of individual Autoguide users. As I have indicated, the purpose of the licence condition envisaged in paragraph (f) is to enable the Secretary of State to acquire information on overall traffic movements. It is most certainly not our intention to collect information on individual vehicles or to use the Autoguide system to keep track of the movements of individual drivers. It may however be possible to make use of an Autoguide system to assist with the location of stolen vehicles, though this is not an area we have yet studied. My noble friend Lord Lucas referred to this general area. I can certainly see advantages in an Autoguide subscriber whose vehicle was stolen being able to find out where it was. This is an area which we have not yet studied.
We would like to look at the drafting of the new subsection (12), but we see advantages in making it absolutely clear in the Bill that Autoguide and other driver information systems will not form part of a big brother. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw these amendments on the understanding that we shall consider the matter further to see whether there is a way that the effects which he seeks to include in subsection (12) could be achieved in the Bill.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving us his assurance that he will look at these points. The Bill clearly states that the Secretary of State can request:
"such information … as the Secretary of State requires".
Therefore there is nothing in the Bill to limit information that he might require. That is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, amplified in his remarks. So there is need to take a careful look at the matter and I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will do so.
As regards the question of supplying information to the highway authorities free of charge, I should like to read very carefully what the Minister said. If the highway authorities are to be involved right at the start—I hope they will be—in helping to define the areas which will be used and also the use of the

681
infrastructure in the roads to he used, and then when they require information which will help them to plan future traffic infrastructures and other matters there is a charge for it, that seems totally unreasonable.
The Minister said that it is unreasonable not to make a charge and I shall have to read carefully what he said. However, I am grateful to him for agreeing to look at the other amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 13, line 32, after ("State") insert ("for an agreed fee").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 50. These are linked amendments which deal with costs. A licence-holder will, 1 believe, be under an unsatisfactory statutory obligation to provide information to the Secretary of State. Indeed, we have dealt with that element of the matter, but he is still under the obligation to provide information to the Secretary of State for a payment at a level which is to be set by the customer—the Secretary of State. That provision could be good, bad or indifferent; it could in fact by quite derisory.
The amendments would lay down the need for an agreement for fees to be negotiated. I wish to make the following point, notwithstanding what my noble friend the Minister had to say when we discussed Amendment No. 45, which was an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to leave out paragraph (f), which dealt with costs. He said that of course such payments would be negotiated. But in fact the Bill says nothing of the sort. At the beginning of paragraph (f) it says:
"Requiring the licence holder to furnish to the Secretary of State such information derived".
I have suggested that after the words "Secretary of State" we should include the words "for an agreed fee". Then, at line 50, it says:
"The Secretary of State may make such payments as he may determine in respect of the furnishing of information".
Again I remind the Committee that my noble friend said in respect of an earlier amendment that this should be negotiated. However, it does not provide for anything of the sort. It says that the Secretary of State may make such payments as he determines. There is nothing about negotiation there; there is nothing about agreement at all.
After having said that and having looked at the Autoguide guidelines I come back to the same question which we have met many times this evening: are the guidelines primarily for the use of the potential applicant for a licence or are they guidelines as to how the law embodied in the Bill shall be interpreted? Indeed, in a recent debate in this House we dealt with the view the courts should take of what Parliament meant. I do not want to go into that subject. Clearly, the guidelines in subsection (8) are irrelevant if one looks at the Bill. If one does not do that, and says that the guidelines are just guidelines and one should not be worried because the money to be paid cannot be determined because of the
682
guidelines, we cannot possibly agree on the one hand to the guidelines and on the other to the Bill.
My amendment is good; it is sound. I do not believe that there is a technical defect in it, because it embodies what I have been trying to describe. It in no way affects the guidelines because the Secretary of State has already waived, within the guidelines, those powers under this section of the Bill in so far as—the Minister confirmed this point earlier—it provides three years for the pilot stage and 12 years for the full licence. There can be no disadvantage in my noble friend accepting the amendment.
I have to say in all honesty that it would need a bolder man than I to carry this matter all the way, but I believe what I have said to be right. My noble friend may say that he accepts the amendment. He shows no inclination to do so at the moment and so I must wait to see what he says. In the meantime, I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworthe: One of the themes that has come through a number of the points forcefully put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when he moved the amendment is the whole question of what is in the Bill; what is in the guidelines and what the Minister, no doubt with the greatest of sincerity and belief in the future, says will happen. Some of us listened to the second debate last Wednesday, when judges, QCs and people with a great experience of looking at legislation made it absolutely clear that only one thing could influence the interpretation of an Act—that is, the words in the Act. One can look at Hansard to see the Government's intention when everyone accepted what was said and thought they knew what it meant, but at the end of the day the judge looks at the Act and that is all that matters.
The Minister has been helpful and given us the guidelines. That may have caused more trouble, but it does not mean to say that I do not want him to provide us with guidelines and Notes on Clauses in the future. They have been helpful. Nevertheless, at the end of the day it is the words that count. In this case, the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has a strong point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is not quite right. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the amendments are not necessary.
The purpose of paragraph (f) of Clause 10(8) is, as I have explained, to enable the Secretary of State to acquire information from the operator of an Autoguide or some other driver information system. The sort of information we have in mind would relate, for example, to traffic speeds in particular areas and would be used to help the Department of Transport to assess the need for road improvement and traffic regulation measures.
However, the Bill would not allow the Secretary of State to compel the operator to provide this information. There would need to be agreement between the Secretary of State and the operator, as part of the negotiations on the operators' licence. There is power in Clause 10(9) for the Secretary of State to pay for such information and the operator

683
would presumably sign the licence only if he were satisfied with the level of payment offered by the Secretary of State.
The difference between the Bill and the guidelines is that the Bill sets out the legal framework, including the powers for the Secretary of State. The guidelines set out who would use the powers for one system, Autoguide, in one area, London. As I said earlier, the guidelines would then lead to a legally binding arrangement between the Secretary of State and the operators. These things would be set down in a legally binding agreement. Whether they are in the Bill or not does not matter because they would be just as legally binding in the agreement signed between the Secretary of State and the promoter.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I do not find that reassuring.To be honest, I want to take legal advice on the matter. I think I shall want to come back to Amendment No. 47 later, although I have some sympathy with the Minister's answer. However, in Amendment No. 50 we are dealing with something rather different because we have moved a little bit away from the details of the licence and we are in the area of the Secretary of State mating payments in respect of the furnishing of information by virtue of that which is gathered by a licence-holder.
The Minister can wriggle around any way he likes, but the Bill quite clearly says that the Secretary of State may make such payments as he may determine. There is no question here of a condition of the licence or negotiation with a licence-holder. I am sorry to tell my noble friend that I do not believe that in law he is right in his argument. Be that as it may, I shall investigate this and I am absolutely sure my noble friend will be looking closely at what has been said. We can return to this matter at the next stage, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 52 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): There is a printing error here. Amendment No. 53 should go with Clause 12 and I therefore propose to put the Question that Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I wanted to raise one issue on Clause 10 and I apologise to my noble friend for not having given him notice of my intention. However, I only discovered it late this afternoon and I shall be quite happy if he wishes to let me know later his feelings on the matter that I wish to raise.
Clause 10(8)(e) on page 13 deals with the regulating of charges that may be made by the licence holder,
"to drivers or other persons for receiving data transmitted by a driver information system".
I am quite happy so far as that goes, but the subsection then goes on—
"or for any other services provided by the licence holder".
684
I am going to use a fairly usual circumstance to describe my worry.
Here we have Autoguide, which is being promoted, albeit separately, by the two major motoring organisations: the Royal Automobile Club with its consortium and the AA with another consortium. Both those organisations provide many other services in a variety of ways. It is not clear to me whether "regulating the charges that may be made by the licence holder" can relate to other services under the terms of the subsection. The Bill says that it can. Does this include the recovery service, the hotel guide service, or whatever other service those consortia may provide? Indeed, even if they were corporately separate from both those motoring organisations they might wish in the fullness of time to provide other information services. Are those services to be regulated under the terms of the Bill?
There might possibly be some contradiction in terms of what we mean by "other services." I cannot think that it is the Government's intention to regulate the charges those organisations make for a hotel guide, a walking guide, an overseas guide or anything else. Perhaps my noble friend would satisfy me as to whether my interpretation is correct.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall have to write to my noble friend on this issue. It would not be our intention that other services not connected with the driver information system would be covered by this. My noble friend mentioned the AA and the RAC as promoters. But, of course, GEC and Plessey are as well, and we do not know what might be covered, so it certainly is not our intention. However, I think I should write to my noble friend and clarify the situation.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Power to install apparatus etc.]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 15, line 11, at end insert ("without the approval of the Highway Authority").
The noble Lord said: This appears to be a commonsense amendment specifying that there should not be apparatus in the road, which will almost certainly be owned by the highway authority, without the approval of that authority.
Subsection (4) reads:
"The powers conferred by subsection (2) above shall not be exercisable by fixing system apparatus to a traffic sign (within the meaning of section 64(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984)".
I have suggested adding,
"without the approval of the Highway Authority",
and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is proposing the same amendment.
When one looks at subsection (2) it seems that the holder of an operator's licence can:

"(a) install system apparatus in, upon, under, over, along or across a public road:

(b) inspect. maintain, adjust, repair, alter, renew or remove any system apparatus so installed:".

He can also break up or open a road and tunnel or bore under the road. There could be very great

685
difficulties and in some cases danger in not having the approval of the highway authority.
I know that common sense dictates that no one would possibly get involved in such matters without approaching the highway authority, but if in extremis the licensee felt that something had to be done quickly without the approval of the local authority since he was in a great deal of trouble, I suppose that theoretically he could go back to the Act and say, "I do not really need the approval of the local authority". That is something that the Minister, on reflection, should agree with. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: For some obscure reason I see that the noble Lord opposite and I have put down amendments couched in precisely the same terms. I do not dissent from anything that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said. However, I would add two points. First, without the amendment, the clause that we are discussing specifically excludes existing road furniture. That seems to me quite ridiculous. A licence holder would then seek permission, as necessary, to stick up his own piece of furniture. That is absolute nonsense when the existing furniture can be used. That is where I believe the highway authority should come in.
There is a second reason in addition to the commercial argument. For environmental and anti-vandalism reasons it makes sense that all this kind of apparatus should be fixed on the existing furniture. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister will accept that this amendment is necessary and reasonable.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 at the same time, as they are identical. I am grateful to the noble Lords for the explanations of these amendments. The effect of the amendments would however be to allow the fixing of driver information system apparatus not to the poles on which traffic signs are mounted but to the signs themselves. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that in no circumstances should equipment be mounted where it might obscure a traffic sign.
The position regarding the attachment of system apparatus to the poles of traffic signs is dealt with in Clause 12(5) and (6). The written consent of the highway authority will be required unless the Secretary of State prescribes otherwise by order. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We should be reasonably grateful to the Minister for that response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 15. line 40, at end insert—
("( ) The powers conferred by subsection (2) above shall not be exercised prior to the introduction of a new Public Utilities Street Works Act.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment would be to prevent any Autoguide operator from taking advantage of the powers in the Bill to install apparatus in the highway until a new Public Utilities Street Works Act had been introduced along the lines recommended in the Horne Report.
The Minister will be aware that what we are really doing is seeking from him a confirmation stronger than the statement he made on Second Reading, when he said:
"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." —[0fficial Report, 15/12/88; col. 1060.]
That statement was welcomed, but it is important that the Government appreciate that none of the improvements envisaged in the Horne Report can be achieved without legislation. The Minister himself suggested that. He also suggested that the Government were waiting for a point in the legislative programme at which to insert that provision.
A number of the recommendations could be implemented on a voluntary basis. But we believe, and I am sure the Minister believes, that if he could get the power and the money to implement it, the Horne package as a whole is a balanced one with gains and losses for both authorities and utilities. Selective implementation would inevitably alter that balance and, despite the unprecedented level of agreement and co-operation which now exists between the utilities and the highway authorities, would result in patchy and unco-ordinated adoption of the Horne proposals.
The Minister must find complaints on his desk almost daily from all over the country about holes in the road. I am sure that he is sympathetic to the complaints. We should like confirmation that his department and he himself are still pressing for some room in the legislative programme as soon as possible. We hope that he will accept the amendment in order to lend power to his elbow. On the basis of the amendment the various undertakers would be only too pleased to bring additional pressure on the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I cannot accept the amendment. The noble Lord will no doubt not be surprised by that. As I said in our earlier debate at Second Reading, we are committed to introducing legislation at a suitable opportunity to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 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.
I believe that it would be wrong to stop the Autoguide system from being introduced merely because we have not yet legislated in that particular area. It would be wrong to debar the use of powers to install apparatus simply because those revised procedures for street works have not yet been introduced.

687
It may interest the noble Lord to know that the installation of Autoguide equipment will not, I hope, cause a great many problems so far as concerns digging up the roads. It will involve perhaps 200 to 300 beacons. A fully commercial system would clearly need more infrastructure, but the amount of street work needed for each beacon would be minimal. Much of the cabling would be installed by one of the two existing public telecommunication operators—BT or Mercury. Those operators would almost certainly use existing ducts and powerlines. They would not need to install new powerlines simply for Autoguide.
There might be one area where the public might be aware of the installation of Autoguide equipment; that would be at road junctions or other points where beacons were installed. Even there, there should be no question of major excavation of the road. The most that would be needed would probably be the cutting of a small slot across the highway and traffic could quite safely continue to pass over that while the necessary cable was being installed. Other work might be necessary on the footway, but again it would not be extensive. It would involve nothing like the amount of digging that the water board or the gas board have occasionally to do.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and also for the information that the Horne Report is still sticking out of the pigeon-hole in his department. We hope that at some time it will fall out onto his desk. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Driver Information Systems: Undertaker's Works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 38, line 14, leave out ("operator") and insert ("undertaker").
The noble Lord said: The amendment corrects a one-word drafting error in paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 5. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:
Page 40, column 3. leave out lines 2 to 4.
Page 40, line 16, column 3, after ("Schedule 1") insert—
(" —
(a) in paragraph 2, the word "and" at the end of subparagraph (a),
(b) in paragraph 3, the word "and" at the end of subparagraph (b),
(c) in paragraph 4, the word "and" at the end of subparagraph (a), and
(d) in the table.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 together. These amendments are made to reflect the drafting conventions which apply to schedules of repeals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Security Service Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at four minutes before ten o'clock.